Why use C++

Why is C++ so useless and to all the C++ people here what do you use it for?

- It is useless for systems programming because you can just use C and every serious systems programmer does that and every serious kernel/driver programmer hates C++.

- There are nicer languages for userspace programming so why use C++? It doesn't even have garbage collection and its standard library is a joke. Not to mention all the things that are so horribly broken in this language.

Why use C++ at all? Seriously this language is useless and Linus Torvalds agrees.

>>1
The games industry love C++.

>>2
I'm not really quite sure why either.

>>3
It's actually more useful than these basement nerds understand.

>>4
I don't particularly like C++ because it feels like the people who developed just glued things on to C. I however am not an [b][i][o][u]EXPERT[/i][/o][/i][/b] programmer, so I my opinion is not particularly worth anything.

C++ has a lot of problems, but Bjarne specifically created it for himself. Unlike 9/10 of programmers that just bitch about what exists, he made up something that did precisely what he needed it to.

Metaprogramming is also thoroughly enjoyable.

>>1
There's a sort of programmer who's more interested in the act of writing code and solving puzzles than anything else. C++, with its heaping set of extra puzzles, verbosity, and slow development time, fits the bill perfectly. You don't even need an interesting project to get your brain twisted. This type of programmer is also very fond of things such as manual memory management, slow compilation, and anything else that makes them feel like they're a “real programmer”.

>>5
Amazing BBCode fail.

>>7
good post, good points.

>>7
Wouldn't you use C if you want manual memory management?

>>6
Metaprogramming is also thoroughly enjoyable.
Of course it is (you weren't referring to metaprogramming in C++, were you?).

You have to be a different kind of person to love C++. It is a really interesting example of how a well-meant idea went wrong, because [C++ creator] Bjarne Stroustrup was not trying to do what he has been criticized for. His idea was that first, it might be useful if you did to C what Simula did to Algol, which is basically act as a preprocessor for a different kind of architectural template for programming. It was basically for super-good programmers who are supposed to subclass everything, including the storage allocator, before they did anything serious. The result, of course, was that most programmers did not subclass much. So the people I know who like C++ and have done good things in C++ have been serious iron-men who have basically taken it for what it is, which is a kind of macroprocessor. I grew up with macro systems in the early ’60s, and you have to do a lot of work to make them work for you—otherwise, they kill you.
I'd sure like to see some good, solid code examples of what Alan Kay is talking about here. Then I could truly understand the soul of C++.

>>11
Metaprogramming in C++ is just as great as - and possibly better than - metaprogramming in any other language, provided that you enjoy working with C++ like >>7 suggests.

I've tried C++ before and didn't liked it(except operator overloading(which C is missing)).
The whole Classes,Objects, Exceptions and misc. OOP crap was mostly useless and counterproductive.



________________________________________________
http://xs135.xs.to/xs135/09042/av922.jpg
Tragedy, for me, is not a conflict between right and wrong, but between two different kinds of right.

>>13
Ahhhh... you make a good point.

>>2
360 doesnt

i ♥ c#

>>2
Actually I heaard that THE GAME is written in C++

>>17
No, it was ported to Fjolnir

Like a successful religion suppresses its host's desire for logical reasoning, C++ when taught to a programmer can damage his ability to differentiate between basic programming concepts, and the C++ syntax for these.

Furthermore, like MMORPGs like WoW create a feeling of investment, so too can C++ invoke a sense of "This was a lot of work to learn, I don't want to go through that again with another language.", and "It was this difficult to learn, so it must be powerful."

It accomplishes this through the stuff mentioned in >>7. In particular, while the term "language lawyering" certainly can be used for languages like C, perhaps for some argument about some obscure edge case the standard is vague about, C++ is unusual in that it, being more organically grown than hemp, makes this a necessary and integral part of everyday programming. Your growth as a C++ programmer lies not in learning about general programming techniques, algorithms or abstractions, but rather in a never-ending discovering of the language's features and pitfalls. They'll admit as much, as they're rather proud of how it's "not a language you can ever fully know" or some such, and they act smug like a WoW whore about how they're a higher level than you because they started earlier and wasted a lot of time grinding.

It should be clear that while C++ does has a high degree of fitness, it is not necessarily beneficial to its host, and that C++, especially when taught to the inexperienced, can mentally mutilate programmers beyond hope of regeneration.

It's really simple. Everyone is (sometimes needlessly so) obsessed with performance of their applications. C++ is the highest level language you can use without sacrificing performance.

>>20
C++ is the highest level language you can use without sacrificing
That's very depressing.

C++ is the highest level language you can use without sacrificing performance.
This is a call to arms, ye Haskell Nomads! Let's use our state of satori to create some interactive application that'll compete well with C.

If you call C++ useless, you don't know a fuckin shit about programming. If you apply for a programming job (not a shitty one), they will expect you to know C++. You should ask that for alternative languages, not for C, C++ etc.

For example, I'm a D fan and I use it on my personal projects all the time. But I know that I will never find a D job. C++ is the only choice for serious jobs (unless you find a very stupid company that uses java.)

>>23,24
You are using a different definition of useless to the one we are.

>>25
Oh, my bad. I get it now.

OOP is not useless. Listing C++ as a "pro" in stytem programming is stupid. Listing C as a "pro" in game programming etc. is more stupid.
For example, XMMS2 guys say "MPD uses C++, we use C, we rule". This is plain stupid, I will never understand them.

>>24
It's really unfortunate, as I think D has the potential to be THAT high level language that is competetive to C/C++, but it's not really gaining much steam.

>>27
Exactly. but problem is no major company supports it and it is too late for a C++ replacement. I think main usage of D will be indie games. And it is a damn good language for game programming.

>>24
My company uses both C++ and Java! That's just what it takes to compete in the real world where useful software is written!!

>>29
Haha, this is a digression but my lab actually uses Java combined with C preprocessor elements. We have to run our code through the C preprocessor before compiling -_-.

>>29
Shipping adequately reliable software in a cost (time and money) effective manner is the theoretical way of getting software to compete in the real world. Java or C++ are not necessary for this to happen.

>>30
Oh my god... hahahah

>>30
I think the C pp should be utilized more in other languages. It's a very powerful tool and one of the things that made C a great language

>>33
I agree, we only do this because the C pp offered the most efficient way to generate the code we needed. I just wish we didn't have to rely on a method that thoroughly breaks any IDE you'd want to use with Java.

>>20
Yes, that is something that C++ programmers actually believe.

>>35
That's understandable, since it's true.

>>36
This is what C++ programmers actually believe.

>>36
Perhaps you had better share your magical compiler with the rest of the world, because most people are still using hand-written assembly for really performance-critical sections.

>>38

Well written C++ runs just as fast as well written C.

Well written C++
no such thing exists.

>>39
http://ridiculousfish.com/blog/archives/2009/06/22/i-didnt-order-that-so-why-is-it-on-my-bill-episode-1/

>>41 I Always try to make my C functions "inline void()"


_______________________________
http://xs135.xs.to/xs135/09042/av922.jpg
Nature is busy creating absolutely unique individuals, whereas culture has invented a single mold to which all must conform. It is grotesque.

>>41

Touché. That C++ feature is very silly.

>>1
I find it interesting that you arrived at that conclusion, despite the prevalence of C++.

I don't think you're as familiar with C++ as you would like to believe.

>>44
What do you mean by that? please elaborate. I'm a driver and embedded systems developer so I can only talk about low-level programming and C++ is hardly used for that. In fact most of the guys I know hate it.

>>45
I didn't say that system programming used C++. I said that it's quite prevalent in the market. Businesses don't like costly and broken things. If C++ were as costly and broken as some would like you to believe, no business in its right mind would use it. Ever.

>>46
THIS IS WHAT IDIOTS ACTUALLY BELEIVE

>>46
/prog/ is a huge neckbeard wankfest over SICP, they don't know or care about practical applications for programming.

>>46
C++ had its time which was the 90s. today with the advent of languages like c# and java however it's become obsolete.

>>48
If you don't like it fuck off

>>46
If C++ were as costly and broken as some would like you to believe, no business in its right mind would use it. Ever.
They don't. Any business that uses it isn't in its “right mind”.

COBOL is also quite prevalent in the market.

>>52
It's no longer as prevalent as Java (still not sure if this is a good thing)

>>53
(still not sure if this is a good thing)
You might want to actually use COBOL before saying such things.

>>54
>>53-san was merely saying that there are better options than Java to boot out COBOL, not that Java is worse than COBOL.

>>55
But Java is better than COBOL, and thus it would be silly of >>53-kun to complain.