On 22/02/17 13:26, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 February 2017 at 09:09:45 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
Learning C++, then D, then Rust for example will have benefit because
there are new things there even though the core computational model is
effectively the same – they have differences that matter.
Maybe. I think "modern" C++ is a in class of it's own at this point. It
is now quite detached from it's root: C with classes.
I feel slightly bad for sending you to read through the whole of
http://lbrandy.com/blog/2010/03/never-trust-a-programmer-who-says-he-knows-c/
before getting to the punchline on the last sentence, but on the plus
side, it is very short.
On a slightly different note, "C with classes" is the name of C++'s
predecessor, which was a preprocessor. Strastrup draws a very distinct
line between that and the first C++ compiler (cfront).
the computational model as for all the patterns you ought to follow and
not nearly enough constraints from the compiler on what you should not
do.
That is a matter of perspective. I, for one, feel other languages put
too much constraints on, making me work quite hard to get what I want
expressed in the language, often blocking me from the most efficient
implementation altogether.
D is better in that regard than many, but still weights on me on occasion.
With modern C++ you either have to go for being proficient or end up
feeling miserable. Which is quite different from most imperative
languages I think.
Which is precisely why it is not a good language to start with unless
you intend to stick with it. This is not a language mastered quickly,
and superficial knowledge of it really is a dangerous thing. There is no
point in aiming to learn it superficially.
Shachar
