C++

Hello /prog/,
why does the enterprise still use inferior languages like Java and C#? They're both limited and constrict the programmer to OOP. Now, we all know that C++, having invented OOP, is superior (just think of how limited are Java/C#'s generics compared to templates, and they don't even allow multiple inheritance!).
They have a VM, that means a) SLOW AS FUCK b) they are not close eto the hardware. Seriously, they can't even make a binary executable without 300 mb of shit.

C++ is the best language out there, and you know it: it's close to the hardware like C but, at the same time, has high level stuff like templates and multiple inheritance (and constructors/destructors!) that a joy programming in it.

Then, there are those pointless functional (oops, I meant fictional) languages that are good for nothing in the real world, like Haskell (lol, everything is immutable, enjoy copying a 3000 elements long array to modify one single FUCKING value, even though they haven't got real arrays, but LINKED LISTS, that are inefficient and slow for today programs) and LISP ((((((((((((did) thomeone) thay) (parenthetheth?)))))))))), both SLOW AS FUCK (LISP is even interpreted, what the fuck) and can't even compare to C++.

We should just switch to C++, that with the new standard and lambda functions it will be even more powerful than before (maybe more than a Turing-machine).

Because it doesn't have forced indentation.

>>1
It sounds like you've just been trolled by reality.

>>1
C++
best language in the world

functional languages
good for nothing
You, sir, are an idiot.

There's no such thing as the "best programming language in the world". Programming languages are different approaches to solve problems. Different problems in the world need different approaches. C++ might be good when you want to do a certain kind of business, lisp is efficient for another. Saying that this or that is "herp derp useless" only means you're too inexperienced, that you have never encountered diverse problems in your programming life.

There are problems that are better approached over a VM rather than with a compiled executable. There are problems that you can solve in Lisp in a couple hundred lines when you would have to write thousands of lines to solve the same problem in C++.

inb4 YHBT
No, I'm just bored.


                                   |\
                                   | |
                                   | |
Console.WriteLine("Yo!")           | |
          \                        | |
           \         ))))))))      | |
                   ((((    \       | |
                    \\\.=<#-<#     | |
                     \C     7      | |
       ,              \    -)      | |
       \\__         __.) (.__      | |
        \\\\ _    /'         `\    | |
         \_ '/   /  ,       .  \   | |
           \ \  /  /| '   ' |\  \  | |
            \ \/  / |       | \  \ | |
             \  /'  |       |  `\ \| |
              `'    |       |    \ | |
                    |   .   |     \| |
                    >-------<      | |\
                   [~~~~~~~~~]     | | )
                   [    L    ]     | \/
                   [    |    ]     | |
                   [____|____]     | |
                    | /   \ |      | |
                    ()     ()      | |
                    ||     ||      | |-._
                    ||     ||      | |_  `.
                    )(     )(      | | `-. `.  
                   /==\   /==\     | |    `.;
                  ooooO} {Ooooo    | |      `
                  ~^^^~   ~^^^~    |/

>Now, we all know that C++, having invented OOP, is superior

Saying that this or that is "herp derp useless" only means you're too inexperienced, that you have never encountered diverse problems in your programming life
Except C++ rolls every useful type of programming paradigm into a neat little ball.

For example, most people would recommend python or javascript for a simple web app, but I could easily write a library in C++ that emulates the way python or javascript does it perfectly, or I can use someone else's library.

C++, you know, is YHBT.

(LISP is even interpreted, what the fuck
You're an idiot. Most Lisps compile to native code and some of them have very good optimizers. I've written some memory and CPU intensive code which was only some 2-3 times slower than the C version which itself was ~12 times as big. For code which is thousands of lines, using a good high-level language is worth it.

>>1
why does the enterprise still use inferior languages like Java and C#?
Nice argument.

They're both limited and constrict the programmer to OOP. Now, we all know that C++, having invented OOP, is superior (just think of how limited are Java/C#'s generics compared to templates, and they don't even allow multiple inheritance!).
Other than being a series of falsehoods - C# supports functional programming quite well, Java's support is uglier but still there, you can use either of them as imperative languages even though it doesn't particularly facilitate good design - this is just plain dumb.

You make an implicit assertion that lacking these things makes the language limited, when this is not true. Any problem that multiple inheritance is actually needed for can easily be solved with single/interface inheritance. It merely makes some limited subset of problems easier. Not having superior semantics for an extremely limited number of cases is not "limiting." The problems can still be solved.

You also don't understand the point of generics if you're comparing them to templates. They are only conceptually similar in one respect: That they're intended to allow the same code to be used on arbitrary types. Beyond that, it's comparing apples to oranges. There are things that generics can do that you can't do with templates. There are things you can do with templates that you can't with generics.

For example, sans concepts and axioms, you can't constrain templates. Generics give very clear and specific error messages when things don't work. You can also detect them earlier - you can't find a template error until compile time because they need to be compiled to see if the code using templates matches what the template expects.

On the other hand, because templates are Turing complete, you can do things like compile-time factorial computation. Not that you'd want to, but you can't achieve something like that with generics.

C++ is the best language out there, and you know it: it's close to the hardware like C but, at the same time, has high level stuff like templates and multiple inheritance (and constructors/destructors!) that a joy programming in it.
You don't know what you're talking about. Being close to the hardware is a mere talking point. It helps to be able to directly specify your intent in assembly, sure, but 9.9 times out of 10, you're not using that ability. That makes it a really dumb thing to parade around when you could simply write a library in assembly and reference that from a saner language.

You also don't appear to know much about constructors and destructors. The idea of functions that initialize and destroy some data relevant to an object is probably even older than Lisp. There's no magic high level crap happening there. They're just functions.

Then, there are those pointless functional (oops, I meant fictional) languages that are good for nothing in the real world, like Haskell
Nice argument.

>(lol, everything is immutable, enjoy copying a 3000 elements long array to modify one single FUCKING value, even though they haven't got real arrays, but LINKED LISTS, that are inefficient and slow for today programs)
Take a lesson from your beloved STL: Arrays are pretty much only used for vectors. I believe pretty much every other container is based primarily on linked lists in most implementations. Perhaps you should be brushing up on your algorithms.

>and LISP ((((((((((((did) thomeone) thay) (parenthetheth?)))))))))), both SLOW AS FUCK (LISP is even interpreted, what the fuck) and can't even compare to C++.
Lisp is a very simple language which means that it doesn't insert a great deal of overhead. The grammar is remarkably light and you can go into using pointers and stuff fairly easily. It is a tradeoff between native compilation (which, in the case of C++, is a grotesquely laborious process) and interpreted (no compile time). The speed difference is negligible to a human. If you're using Lisp for super intense processing, chances are that you can find a better language to do it anyway. It's really a retarded argument.

I also like how in the same breath where you decry the linked list which gives a lot of the basic underlying structures in the STL their speed, you'll talk about how C++ is faster than an interpreted language.

>We should just switch to C++, that with the new standard and lambda functions it will be even more powerful than before (maybe more than a Turing-machine).
You don't understand why lambdas are important. If you did, you wouldn't have started off by ad hominem against functional languages.

The whole concept of OOP first appeared in smalltalk.

The *variable* in Haskell, which is defined as a valid expression, is what is immutable. This expression gets (lazily) evaluated to a value. In other words, you can't copy 3000 elements to modify a single value.

>>11
in addition, Haskell does have mutable arrays
http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Modern_array_libraries#Mutable_IO_arrays_.28module_Data.Array.IO.29

>>10

wrong. it was simula

fucking idiot

YHABT

You guys do realize you are getting trolled, right?

>>15
You are reiterating a point already made clear by >>14

>>14
I wasn't I'm UNTROLLABLE.