Re: C++... is it dying?
James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> wrote:
"Daniel T." <danie...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Juha Nieminen <nos...@thanks.invalid> wrote:
puzzlecracker wrote:
If I had to code in C, which has no data containers nor
algorithms whatsoever (besides the horrible qsort), that
would be a real nightmare.
Nonsense. You would do the same thing every programming house
did before the STL came along, develop your own set of
containers and algorithms and use them. Then when someone
asked why you don't switch from what you know to this "new
improved" library, you would look at all the code you already
have written, all the evidence that your containers work and
work well, and ask "why bother?"
To which you answer: because it's standard. I've used many
different pre-standard libraries, most of them better designed
than the STL (but some real desasters in design, too). But none
of them as well known as the STL: I'm concerned with my code
being easily understood not only by the veterans who've worked
at the company for years, but by the new kids we hire next week.
For most purposes, the my GB_ArrayOf, OSE's OTC_Vector and the
standard's std::vector will work equally well, but the new hire
will already know std::vector, but not GB_ArrayOf or OTC_Vector.
(Not to mention that a lot of places where I've worked bought in
libraries like the Booch toolkit, which are no longer
supported.)
The new kids we hired (about 20 in the last 3 months) don't know the
STL, so your reasoning is quite speacious. Most people learning C++
still learn "from the ground up", they have barely touched on the
standard containers and algorithms (if at all,) and routinely use raw
pointers and loops, because that was what they learned in school.
Programming languages have a nasty habit of starting life
clean and well designed but with a few quirks and lacking in
some way, then they grow to become bloated beasts that have
way more than they need and even more quirks because of the
requirement that they are backwards compatible. Eventually
they die under their own weight. Either that, or the language
stagnates and eventually becomes minor niche.
C++ seems to be in the unenviable position of officially
bloating while practically stagnating.
I don't follow you here.
I'll spell it out, C++ (indeed any language that has been growing for a
while) has a bunch of "standard features" that people don't use, and
more is being added, while it also has a bunch of "warts" that people
have to use.
Please understand, I love the language and know it well, but I find that
isn't the case for most users of it.