Why is C++...

...so bad? Why does it have such a bad reputation?

I'm an experienced C++ programmer and, while the language has warts, I can't understand the reason for the enormous amount of criticism against the language.

I'd like to hear the honest opinions of /prog/rammers in this regard.

>>160
"Retards' ways are inscrutable", is that what your argument boils down, to wilful rejection of any attempts at explaining the phenomenon?
Nope, which makes your entire post really pointless.

>>160
Yes, but why have they choose to remain wilfully ignorant,
Because they feel like it? Lispers don't care that others don't care? Seeking meaning in things that are meaningless is the sign of one who has yet to attain 悟り.

VB proves this. [...] VB with lambdas, [...] VB codemonkeys
Doesn't per >>153 , consistent argumentation by tunnel vision.

recognize the superiority of using lambdas, on the other hand there are no useful programs written in Lisp
Great things are best given in small amounts, else they overwhelm the uninitiated. Of course, there are useful Lisp programs, they just won't fit your troll narrative.

I see RoR mounting the webdev world
Plateau'd

and there are countless examples of that.
Selective memory.

I'm rich and famous because I developed [...].
If this tool was making you enough money to get that second yacht why are you on world4ch spilling the secret. In economic theory, that would irrational.

Similarly, C [...] UNIX, how useful it is and how easy it is to port it on any platform.
They were pimping UNIX as a word processor and later on as an operating system, C is just a bundled thing that succeeded B which was after BCPL in the grand scheme of things.

[...] doesn't work for Lisp, [...] Instead of writing useful programs and showing them
The only people that pimp a language despite popularity are bloggers as a hobby and the ones that benefit the most from language's proliferation (companies, sponsors, language designers), this is why we get exposure to COBOL and Ada "industry articles" on a yearly basis even though the number of FOSS projects using those is a meager fraction of any of the individual Lisps in use. People wrote a lot of stuff in Lisp when Lisp was the only symbolic cruncher, people wrote stuff in it to get things done, academics pushed papers and entrepreneurs got bought out, nobody said anything, nobody cares.

I repeat: programming is a branch of fucking engineering
Repeating things won't make them true. And, just because you suck at logic as this thread chronicles doesn't mean anything.

>>160
C took the world by storm purely by virtue of demonstrating UNIX
C/C++ had AT&T backings. AT&T was like Google back then.

>>130
You don't understand. It's not about demonstration for the purpose of explanation, it's about demonstration for the purpose of proof.
The exact same argument applies, in fact I had this interpretation in mind. The fact is if you can't understand it you won't understand the proof either. In both senses this work has already been done independently by language authors, researchers, evangelists and so on. The first question on an experimental language designer's mind is "how can I prove this is TC" and it goes from there, for a remotely successful language all the code you'll need is already written.

If you want to assert the null hypothesis in whatever regard, you'll have plenty of working programs out already—I don't have to write a new one for you—to contend with. It's the same problem as before and you're just trying to justify ignorance.

The blub argument hinges on abstractions, so it's not just about learning languages. It's about being able to think and understand thought in certain abstractions. The point it's trying to make doesn't have anything to do with how good blub is. In fact, if you cut the head off (the hypothetically 'most abstract'), it just boils down to how irresponsible it is to downplay concepts you don't understand. On the other hand, since the argument is about degree of abstraction, understanding it really does put you in a position to judge how well abstracted other languages are.

What you hear instead is them saying "proofcode or get the fuck out", and rightfully so.
No, actually I don't and never have. What I hear is "Lisp is shit." When it comes to a language someone doesn't understand, they either want to learn enough of it to understand what's going on, or they hate it out of prejudice, fear or whatever.

If someone ever actually uttered "proofcode" to me I would probably stop talking to them, and at least they aren't worth proving anything to. Maybe in a few years when they mature their opinion will carry some weight, but only if they've learned to do their own research in the mean time.

>>160
OK, I've had some beer and I am feeling charitable towards you.
Yes, but why have they choose to remain wilfully ignorant, this is the question!
No one deliberately chooses to be ignorant. They are willfully ignorant because people have answered their questions: why is lisp better? Because for example A B C. But I don't use A or B and I can work around C just fine! Yes but working with these problems means you have all kinds of unmaintainable boilerplate bullshit because your language doesn't allow metaprogramming worth a damn. Etc.

Then time passes, and these people who have been ignoring A and B because it wasn't their problem and working around C because they could find some way are getting a little tired. The workaround is unmaintainable garbage, and A and B were actually more relevant than they realized. Then someone comes up with a fancy new language that has some special forms for handling C, which incidentally now allows workarounds for A and B, and it is the second coming.

So lisp always loses on two fronts to these retards. First it loses because the kind of problems they deal with are small enough to not matter. Then it loses because some new fashionable language close to their own sort of kind of kluges a solution. So it lost when they didn't care, and it loses when someone else handles it anyway.

Software is engineering---and despite your insistence to the contrary, I am an engineer by trade, not a programmer---and in engineering the best solution is almost never chosen. This is because the best solution to an engineering problem is the tiniest bit of a small fraction of a problem that a firm faces. Why did facebook get so popular when livejournal didn't? Who gives a shit? Livejournal is better than facebook, qualitatively, hands down. But fuck it, there's a gazillion non-technical reasons why things fail or succeed and language choice is really, really low on the list.

Then you bring up the old "but what has lisp done besides paul graham." There's so much shit on the internet about lisp success stories it isn't even worth reviewing them. But lisp's success in these venues is likely due to post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies. The kind of people that are attracted to lisp might just be expert fucking hackers in general. They will succeed if they're banging out lisp or working on the Java spec.

Lisps are better languages, hands down. But your metric has almost nothing to do with language quality and if you can't see that, you're more retarded than the programmers I jokingly disparage.

So, Anon, have you solved >>149, because I want to see how it's done without macros?

It's a part of parser, used like that:

(defun /mul ()
  (try a (/term) :fail
    (try o (/op "*" "/" "%") a
      (try b (/mul) (/error "`~a`: missing right operand" o)
        (vector o a b)))))

(defun /add ()
  (try a (/mul) :fail
    (try o (/op "+" "-") a
      (try b (/add) (/error "`~a`: missing right operand" o)
        (vector o a b)))))

>>1
>>3

There's nothing wrong with C++ as a language. The fact is, it's the #1 programming language when it comes to coding PC games.

I can't speak for r/programming, but people on /prog/ are fucking retarded, and would rather jabber on about sub-par, shitballs languages while bashing the mainstream languages that are actually useful. (C++, C#, Java)

>>167
see >>166

Popularity and quality are extremely tenuously related. This applies also to programming language.

>>167
when it comes to coding PC games.
Back to /v/, please!

>>169
football is popular, but does watching some niggers throwing a ball gives you anything of quality?

>>169
argumentum ad populum

Adjective:
1. Very weak or slight: "the tenuous link between interest rates and investment".
2. Very slender or fine; insubstantial: "a tenuous cloud".

>>172
Lisp is shit nonetheless.

Its ironic to see languages on the level of C and C++(which are insanely complex below the surface:try writing anything more than a Hello World) mentioned as Blub, while things like PureBasic(which are dead-easy and filled with anything Blubbers need, the whole modern Basics niche are epitomes of Blub design) outBlub anything that exists on planet with exception of retard-level software like "Instant.exe" and DSLs for visual software generation(which are all much less useful and have less features for EXPERT BLUB SOFTWARE ENGINEERS).

>>175
I've written some PureBasic, its just too unoptimized vs C. Its useful for some quick apps(alot of builtin stuff, though most BASICs tend to include as much) but for optimization of algorithms and performance oriented software you can't beat the speed of C.

The QuickBasic programmers moved on to Visual Basic, the Pure/Blitz/Gfa/Real/Power Basics were largely ignored.

>>175
wait... are you saying that "complex" and "powerful" are the same thing? Or something?

I'd rather code in assembly than Basic.

>> 176
performance oriented software
Behold the [i][b]POOP[b]: Performance object oriented programming![/i]

>>179
You'll code in what jewish manager orders you, goy.

>>165
No one deliberately chooses to be ignorant. They are willfully ignorant because people have answered their questions: why is lisp better? Because for example A B C. But I don't use A or B and I can work around C just fine!
That's fucking insane. A study in cognitive dissonance. I tell you: your entire mode of reasoning is wrong, it's based on a false premise, that people decide that a language is good based on a laundry list of features. Your brain short-circuits: all your miserable life you argued about various laundry lists of features, that's the only thing you know, what's going on? Then you just suppress the entire traumatic experience and go back to talking about Blub retards who don't understand features A, B, and C.

Consider this: someone claims that a spherical car (codename: Cdr) is superior to normal cars. You ask: huh, why is it superior, show me! If Lisp has not yet spread to the rest of your brain from the programming-related areas, what you mean by that is: show me the prototype, how fast does it go, how much fuel does it use, how it is superior. If not then you are beyond logical discussion, goodbye!

If you are still reading: so then that person instead of demonstrating a prototype explains that sphere has the lowest surface-to-volume ratio of all shapes, and also the best structural integrity. Also, spherical cars can easily fit through round holes, and have very good aerodynamic characteristics! "What the hell," -- you reply, confused, -- "these characteristics are either useless or easily approximated!" "Ha-ha-ha, you are a typical Blub engineer," -- declares the Smug Cdr Weenie. Then she adds something about how regular car designs started using aerodynamic shapes only recently, and damn blubbers praise it as the best thing in the world, instead of going all the way and using Cdr already.

Or, as it happened here, you tell her that she is fucking insane, that a laundry list of features doesn't make a car design useful, that discussing features is pointless, and that the only criterion of usefulness is how actual, real cars built according to the design perform in the real world. She looks at you empty-eyed for a minute, then her brain self-resets and she starts again, "Damn Blub programmers, one tells them about features A, B, and C, but they just remain wilfully ignorant!"

But fuck it, there's a gazillion non-technical reasons why things fail or succeed and language choice is really, really low on the list.
I commend your doublethink. Next step: to claim that Enterprise Blub programmers are positively selected for incompetence, and that Lisp makes programmers literally hundred times more productive, in the same post with this assertion. The remark about the "unmaintainable boilerplate" is close, but you need to be more aggressive, to be more explicit about why you argue about Lisp, that it is really important that everyone understands that it's a clearly superior language, which is unpopular because the choice of language doesn't matter.

Lisp has
1.Horrible syntax with prefix notation
2.Much less libraries than C++
3.Horrible elitist community
4.Success stories repeated ad infinitum:Naughty Dog wrote a Lisp-like language==LISP++, Paul Graham wrote a shitty webapp==LISP IS SUPERIOR TO EVERYTHING.
C++ has
1.normal syntax with minimal quirks
2.Fuckton of libraries, compiler, tools, IDEs
3.Many people eager to solve problems for each other
4.The language proved itself by dominating the entire industry
Guess which one average programmer will choose?

>>183
lisp?

>>183
Ah, but lisp has GC.  CHECKMATE

C++ has 1.normal syntax with minimal quirks
laughingwhores.jpg

>>183
>C++ has compilers
You know usually the first task after learning a lisp-like is to make a compiler right? Usually following that you make your own DSLs, and if you're not making DSLs with set types for your variables you're doing Lisp horribly horribly wrong.

the first task after learning a C++-like is to make a video game right?
The first task is not something you decide.
This thread proves point 3.Horrible elitist community

>>182
Most of your post is the same fucking garbage you've been spewing the entire time, constructing some fanciful strawman of a lisper's arguments, which you've obviously never understood in the first place, and them knocking them down.
I commend your doublethink. Next step: to claim that Enterprise Blub programmers are positively selected for incompetence, and that Lisp makes programmers literally hundred times more productive, in the same post with this assertion.
Why would that be the next step, when I never took the first step you seem to think I have? You obviously have no idea what kind of tradeoffs happen, or why they happen, in any project whatsoever.
Or, as it happened here, you tell her that she is fucking insane, that a laundry list of features doesn't make a car design useful, that discussing features is pointless, and that the only criterion of usefulness is how actual, real cars built according to the design perform in the real world.
That is a totally ridiculous analogy because I really use a lisp in the real world for real world things and I am not the only one. All you have to fall back on is some popularity contest. You can argue that Kim Kardashian is better than Shakespeare because material science isn't popular but I'd suspect you wouldn't take that very far. Yet that is all you have to offer so far.

I tell you: your entire mode of reasoning is wrong, it's based on a false premise, that people decide that a language is good based on a laundry list of features.
When I contrast items in a class, I look at their differences. What do you do?

>>189
You can argue that Kim Kardashian is better than Shakespeare because material science isn't popular but I'd suspect you wouldn't take that very far.
Fuck me and changing analogies mid-typing. Ignore the material science bit.

Why would that be the next step, when I never took the first step you seem to think I have? You obviously have no idea what kind of tradeoffs happen, or why they happen, in any project whatsoever.
I have a pretty good idea, actually. And in fact that's kind of my entire point: that there's much more to the usefulness of a language than a laundry list of supported features. With a very important clarification: the popularity of the language amongst 99.99% of programmers is not anywhere near the top by importance.

A case in point: the inclusion of Mono in Ubanto, caused by the existence of a couple of useful applications written specifically for Mono. How do you think, who was swimming against the stronger current, the guys who decided to write a FOSS, Linux based application in _fucking C#_, or lispers? However you look at it, by the number of Linux users who know Lisp vs C#, by the amount of effort spent on SBCL vs Mono, by prejudices against each, you can't help but smell something rotten in the kingdom of Denmark.

That is a totally ridiculous analogy because I really use a lisp in the real world for real world things and I am not the only one.
A lot of people use COBOL in the real world as well, in their little niches with guaranteed job security. Yet we don't see a lot of useful applications written in COBOL in the FOSS world, nor in the desktop-oriented proprietary programs, because apparently the language sucks at helping to write programs that can withstand the competition.

All you have to fall back on is some popularity contest.
It's not the popularity contest between programming languages, it's the popularity contest between applications. That's where the entire Blub argument falls flat on its face, and that's the quite simple point that you are unable to grasp.

When I contrast items in a class, I look at their differences. What do you do?
When I contrast items in a class for the purpose of flaunting immediate properties of the chosen one on anonymous textboards, I look at their differences, true enough. When I want to choose an item that maximises some complex utility function, I compare values of that function across the items. And, since I'm not a fool to learn on my own mistakes, I look at what other people have managed to achieve using each item.

Hey, guys! This is fucking BBS, over 90000 characters posts make you look frumpy.

C++ is good because programmers are stupid. If we had more intelligent programmers we'd have more Lisp applications. This faggot is basically arguing obtaining a Bachelor's Degree is better than obtaining a PhD or heaven forbid, a DoE or otherwise, because Bachelor's are easier, more common, use by more people, are cheaper, etc, without regard to the consequences of this analysis. [spoiler]There are only consequences in Computer Science, have you read your SICP today?

>>193
Programmers are stupid because C++ is popular. If we had a better language we'd have more intelligent programmers.

Are SICP reading friends assholes by nature, or did SICP make them so?
rapotor.jpg

>>195
Assholes by nature.

>>192
Go back to twitter, please.
This is the autism board.

>>191
I look at what other people have managed to achieve using each item.
And there we have it.

The problems with Lisp are not philosophical. CL and Scheme are just too platform-agnostic. Clojure is the future.

At any rate, C++ is certainly the past. C++ is shit in just about every way, and there is basically no reason not to use C instead.

>>199
Iterative constructs aren't the end of the world but making a lisp that cannot even in principle eliminate tail calls at this late date is just stupid, I'm sorry.