Name: Anonymous 2010-10-11 8:53
So, let's sum up what are the real problems with C++:
1. No consistent string type, except
2. No module system. srsly.
3. Pathetic stdlib. most shit is directly inherited from C. and the cstdlib is fucking bullshit.
4. Every compiler might define a different mangling style. try to use a DLL compiled with MinGW with Visualstudio and vice versa. ugh.
5. No module system.
6. No consistent string type.
7. did I already mention the lack of a consistent string type?
8. also, lack of consistent string type.
9. C++ needs a consistent string type, FOR FUCKS SAKE.
10.
11. and while
12. because of reason #11, some people tend to write a string class which inherits from std::string - no problem so far, since std::string does a good job, even though it lacks in many features. no, the problem is the enforced naming of the class; you can either call it
What made the people at ISO think that providing a basic, builtin string class would be OMFG BLOATED? no, really, what made them think that?
1. No consistent string type, except
std::string, which requires the STL. that wouldn't be a problem per se, if ALL compilers would ship the STL. but some don't. so, meh.2. No module system. srsly.
3. Pathetic stdlib. most shit is directly inherited from C. and the cstdlib is fucking bullshit.
4. Every compiler might define a different mangling style. try to use a DLL compiled with MinGW with Visualstudio and vice versa. ugh.
5. No module system.
6. No consistent string type.
7. did I already mention the lack of a consistent string type?
8. also, lack of consistent string type.
9. C++ needs a consistent string type, FOR FUCKS SAKE.
10.
std::string is a pathetic string class, since it only stores the shit in a char array. this is just embarassing.11. and while
std::string is in theory very powerful, it lacks simple operations, such as string replacement without using an iterator: std::string::replace(const std::string&, std::string&) does not exist. woop-de-fucking-doo. one has to wonder why, though, since it's fairly easy to implement.12. because of reason #11, some people tend to write a string class which inherits from std::string - no problem so far, since std::string does a good job, even though it lacks in many features. no, the problem is the enforced naming of the class; you can either call it
String and PRAY that there is no conflicting String class, or you put it in a (billion) namespace(s): myLibrary::stuff::niggerdicks::internalbullshit::thatotherstuff::StringNS::String - beautiful, isn't it? yeah, the taste in your throat is called vomit.What made the people at ISO think that providing a basic, builtin string class would be OMFG BLOATED? no, really, what made them think that?