What's wrong with C++?

What's wrong with C++ and where the fuck the name Sepples comes from?

I mean apart from the sometimes horribly fucked up syntax rules...

Spend four years with Sepples. Really master it. Become a modern, skilled, Sepples developer. Get to the point where you get the $900 p.d. contracts.

Then learn Common Lisp. Then seppuku or change professions.

I'm not sure that sepples devs are so underpaid.

C++ is what you get when you take a really beautifully simple language and then tack a whole bunch of needless crap on to it in really weird ways.
For instance, what the shit is this cout << stuff?
What's wrong with just using puts() or printf()?
Why have <<, why not just pass args like you do with every single other function?

>>4
In the country I live $900 per day is about the most you can get as a sole contractor.

>>5
This is a terrible argument against Sepples. Sepples is a PoS of Python and Haskell proportions. You can come with better quite easily.

OP here.
>>6
Thanks for the info. I guess it really depends on where you live and what kind of stuff is being developed in C++ where you can get a job.
May I ask in what country do you live?
>>5
Actually I agree with the cout stuff, that's why I wrote what I wrote in >>2
I never really liked the cout/cin <</>> stuff myself. We also haven't mentioned the fucked up operator overloadings some people do.
So strictly speaking if we take the entire language some parts of it are pretty fucked up, and I guess some people abuse it, but you don't necessarily have to use those features.

I'm still interested in what people think what things are fucked up about C++.

I use it mainly because I am interested in low-level stuff and native development and it gives me oop when I need it.

>>8
It doesn't give you anything resembling OOP. Smalltalk gives you OOP. Self gives you OOP. Dylan gives you OOP. CLOS gives you OOP.

Sepples gives you brain damage.

>>9
Lol! I guess it depends on what you accept as OOP.

>>8
If, on the other hand, you're interested in low level:

http://git.annexia.org/?p=jonesforth.git;a=blob_plain;f=jonesforth.S

http://git.annexia.org/?p=jonesforth.git;a=blob_plain;f=jonesforth.f;

Thank me later.

Oh and some inspiration: http://www.greenarraychips.com/

>>9
You forgot erlang nigger

>>11 Thanks. I heard about forth, but I never really used it/tried it out. It looks cool though. I think I will tinker with it some time.

>>13
The first two links are a ``literate programming'' tutorial where you will implement forth. The last link is the forefront of forth (and, in many ways, computer) technology. Here's more info:

http://www.infoq.com/presentations/power-144-chip

>>11
32-bit x86
Where's the Loongson version?

>>15
It's a learning resource. It doesn't matter that the example assembler is x86. If you know MIPS it's not that hard to translate (even if you don't know x86, it's all explained well and you can look things up).

>>14
Thanks, I'm listening to the mp3 and watching the slides now. Looks interesting.

>>17
mp3
It sounds better on vinyl.
*whips out slide viewer*

install BSD/Gentoo

>>5
You're not forced to use the standard library, I'm guessing Bjarne just wanted to make it more OOP-ish as a sort of feature demonstration.

"There are only two kinds of languages: the ones people complain about and the ones nobody uses"

>>11,15,16
If you're going to use x86asm then please use the official syntax as defined by Intel and AMD in their documentation, not the stupidly backwards and more incomprehensible GNU version.

>20
official
> Intel
Shalom!

>>20
Intel syntax, more comprehensible ?

>>22
http://x86asm.net/articles/what-i-dislike-about-gas/

Scroll down to "Addressing Memory"...

>>23
You can use intel syntax in gas