Barney Starsoup was even better hahaha kzfaq.info/get/bejne/e8WpfMJy2afacmw.htmlsi=VzWtikwuPAIXnVLH&t=2752 - 45:50

Facts, thats why i chose C. I am just starting in the world of "C" but i still dont see myself ever goin back to OOP so C++ can kiss my ass. It makes Java look good in my opinion

he implemented oop..

@@skeleton_craftGamingjust because another language comes with one specific functionality does not automatically make it better for the project.

@@bofa-zi4fj yeah, also most learning resources for C++ present OOP as the default so that's what people typically end up implementing whether they intend to or not.

@@bofa-zi4fj I agree . But When the other language split from The language that you're using specifically for a feature that you were required to implement (for your algorithm to not crash) then it might [I wouldn't say that it necessarily does but it might; and it does in this case (Because C++ is objectively better language [as unpopular as that may be)]

@@skeleton_craftGaming ]*

That's exactly why C++ is a disgrace.

So, strength of the language is that it compiles to the ELF file?

Just want to point out as well it is provably impossible to distinguish the performance of a guaranteed C++ virtual table function call compared to a standard function call regardless of optimizations. (there is no generic benchmark for which you can guarantee either is more performant, its functionally random chance) Course the compiler could optimize out virtual calls in C++ which C can't do. Advantage of C however could be the lack of needing to address name mangling by default, that's the only big advantage otherwise. (though that is useless if you aren't producing a C ABI, and you can do it in C++ with little hassle even still)

​@@rogo7330 What are you even talking about? Your comment doesn't make any sense

C is the worst programming language except for every other programming language.

@@cobbcoding Which is why C is a lingua franca and making a transpiler that generates C++ code is a futile effort. Ask Andreas Kling and what happened with Jakt.

C is the best programming language.

Except that isn't true at all, 60 years of language development and it's practically unchanged. C23 is praised to the heavens and they added roughly 5 valuable additions.

@@valizeth4073 precisely; it's not bloated to hell like C++ is.

show me the book!

Can't wait for the day of deduced this in all major compilers to fix 95% of CRTP use.

LISP programmers be like:

There's nothing wrong with scouring the web for libraries to accomplish the same purpose a standard library does. You can always write your interfaces to bypass libs and replace them with your own code later, it's not like you're getting by without platform specific or 3rd party libs in any serious project anyway.

El oh el

Ooh, never came across that before. Cheers!

Yes, this is less known but you can pass the second macro name as an argument, just not sure if this is 100% standard

Technically messing with the vtable of an object at runtime is "portable" in the sense that every compiler that has support for virtual classes (thus having a vtable) can have the vtable pointer replaced at runtime. (this is necessary in order to actually support virtual classes being virtual) The standard doesn't ever really define vtables, so referencing them is technically UB, but in a technical sense so is #pragma once, regardless every compiler that has support for virtual classes can also read and reassign a vtable to existing memory blocks, vtables can't be manually defined but their functions can be reassigned and they can be retrieved. (actually technically they sort of can be created in a way, but good luck not creating a memory leak doing that, and there are a lot of protections around directly doing it) All these things are very finicky as you are technically violating a promise the compiler usually expects but so long as you're not doing anything that gets optimized out, and since no compiler recognizes the reassigning of the vtable as UB, it won't optimize out the vtable reassignment. (afaik, least in all the major compilers) A custom allocator is not strictly necessary, though perhaps more efficient depending on implementation. See www.moythreads.com/wordpress/2007/09/14/overriding-the-virtual-table-in-a-c-object/

i agree

Was going to make the same point, you can 'pretty much' always use C++ and if you feel like only using C you just type it and it works. Besides people only get stuck with the messiness and complexity of C++ because they chose to use those features of C++ to begin with. You can just choose not to use them and go about it the C way instead.

Always better? Risky argument. It could be true if C++ compilation wasn't so dog slow compared to C and it gets exponentially worse in big projects if you're not actively preventing this problem and almost nobody is. So, if one's target style is very close to C either way, there is an incentive to drop "pp" from the source files. Performance is another rabbit hole where every good argument must be post-fixed with several layers of "but sometimes" or "but actually". Honestly I think it's almost a tradeoff. Experienced C programmers are used to manual labor in C, but they get much simpler language in exchange, they get really good at whatever they do and they do stuff that seems "hard", "unnecessary" or "not idiomatic" for C++ programmer automatically. EOT On the other hand all C++ programmers had to invest years learning the language that they will never understand fully, nor compilers will be able to implement consistently, as long as committee is extending it every 3 years... in exchange you get a language that can not only implement anything, but be written in any paradigm - to certain extent. Quite honestly if you get over this very high barrier I think you can implement anything pretty fast and in a syntactically verbose, but elegant at times, way, subjectively better than C - focusing a little bit more on the idea, than raw implementation - in a way. Expressing intent is a buzzword for C++ programmers. Yet, for traditionally C programmer those things seem actually "hard and unnecessary" and create a bigger cognitive overhead than the alternative of "just writing some more C code". Who is right? Is anybody wrong? I will probably get ran over in a minute

override keyword, is not available in older c++ code bases, it exists only since c++11.

@@Argoon1981 you should be using C++11 or newer

@@antonpieper That is not always a option, because of required libraries that never got updated, there's people still locked on c++03 code bases and they will be for many more years.

Only C89 compiles in C++, not C95 or anything more modern. And having a million ways to solve 1 problem is not a good thing; for every potential "solution" you have ten issues you have to think about. And figuring out the right solution to the given problem becomes increasingly difficult the more "solutions" you introduce.

C++ is definitely one of those fine art languages, almost impossible to write well, but when it is written well it is really something. It's absolutely plagued with a bunch of unnecessary bloat brought on by years of iso-wack stuff, but it has a relatively simple core that can do absolutely anything and everything. In a way c and c++ have a lot of similarity in the vibe department aside their syntax and rules. To a C programmer c++ often feels bloated, unintuitive and like it's trying to always be smarter than you. To a C++ programmer c often feels contrived, stale, and pointlessly restrictive. Both are an absolute skill issue and from an outside perspective seem like a meaningless squabble. C++ has its place in building things, C also has its place. You can use either, you can use both, just don't footgun yourself like you can in both.

@@miroaja1951 neither is a footgun stop telling yourself that to make yourself feel more clever than you are. And C++ devs have a tendency to write "clever" code that is near impossible for any third party to comprehend - that is not a skill issue, it's what bad practices coupled with bloated languages (and ego) lead to.

@@rusi6219 did you actually read what I was saying or did you just want to be angry at someone?

why use unsafe c++ if we now have a safe rust

Yeah right manually flipping bits inside a flipflop is easier so its trash

@@rubyciide5542 manually sending electrical inputs through a baseboard is way more challenging so that is trash too.

​@@depralexcrimsonmanaging the velocity and directions of every single electron on a circuit is way more challenging so this is also trash

I don't agree at all, template heavy, virtual function crazy, exception madness, pure OOP c++, is way more challenging and complex. C functional/data oriented programing, is so much simpler, so much more fun to work with IMO.

@@rubyciide5542 U talking about a floppy diks ???

initializer list's design in general is flawed in many ways, starting with the name. It's a hard thing to get right and it was introduced at the same time as all the other very hard to get right things in C+11 so I don't blame anyone but it's not ideal. there have been proposals to change this though www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2014/n4166.pdf

It makes no sense to copy construct, then there would exist multiple handles to the underlying pointer which defeats the point of calling it a unique ptr. Instead, you have to be sure to move or forward ownership of the objects throughout your construction or emplacement calls. I wrote another comment that gives two examples.

@@alf5197 The issue here is not that they didn't get it right on the first try but they don't want to admit it as a serious enough problem to be fixed.

@@ominusliticus8264 yes, it makes no sense to copy however it is behavior std::initializer_list enforces as it only provides const& access to its elements regardless its own qualification thus rendering initalization of std::vector from a braced list of elements impossible.

Bourne Stopdrop

@@HonsHon Bono Stopshop*

@@ThomasLee-vs2gu Bong Supermarket*

lol

I didn't even notice until i read it like three times XD

🤣

I especially love the fact that some people hate operator overloading. That means they have never thought about clarity of syntax with long words (e.g. Matrix.addMatrix(Matrix_2) instead of Matrix + Matrix_2).

@@Capewearer std::chrono is also an excellent example where operator overloading makes everything simple and intuitive while providing type-safety without any performance loss.

there's a `_Generic` macro for that 😉

So basically you like that C++ does the actual work for you? How lazy is that

@@rusi6219 Lazy can be good, efficient.

C23 has constexpr, it's deliberately made more constrained than C++'s version tho

⁠@@FlanPoirotwym more constrained?

​@@patboy24 No compile-time crimes

@@0xfadead Like what?

Having more poorly-implemented features is somehow supposed to be a w?

And the long answer is: yes indeed, the only problem C++ has is the burden of backward compatibility with C and old style C++ that makes the language unsafe and overly complex. What C++ really needs is Rust's "unsafe" keyword to tag all the legacy C and C++11 stuff people shouldn't use unless they know what they're doing (which 90% of them don't).

What was wrong? I've using this tandem for 10+ years more or less successfully :D

​@@RushFuture why not use electron JS😉?

@@mwlulud2995 mbedded, low resources

@@mwlulud2995 an engine to render a window, how wonderful... it's like epic games' launcher, a game engine to install a game, an installer that was supposed to have a maximum of 5MB becomes 150MB

Is writing GTK GUI in c that much nicer? ( GObject ) or do you use vala?

I add templates to all my functions to increase compile times by 1000%

Only problem is that C++ hijacks Structs and turns them into classes with public by default semantics. (Including Vtables, constructors, destructors etc. etc.) Essentially, you loose the default C PoD struct. There's probably some ways to get it back, but that's not obvious to the new developer.

@@John-yg1cq Yes that is a problem but it doesn't hinder much of my performance because C++ isn't Python. And I stick with "hacky" ways of doing things unless I really have to decide on properly making a class and its respective methods. Many games use virtual tables and they are still fast enough. Because C++ is a highly optimized and fast language with modern features And it is not Python or Javascript, ofcourse. I use structs as a way to just group some variables. That's all that is for me.

​@@tapwater424it's worth the wait. And the main trouble of C/C++ is header system. You can read the story of Ingo Molnar, who wrote patches for Linux kernel just to speed up enormously slow compilation. E.g. Java and Pascal have module system, which allows for much faster compilation.

@@friedrichmyers There was a paradigm shift in gaming I heard, C++ dominated the 2010s but now we're seeing a bit of resurgence towards C. Still, it's mostly becoming a problem when you go nitty gritty into the details, I agree. But selling C++ structs as C structs is *technically/achtually* incorrect. :^)

Yeah, I already fixed that.

Those languages are incomparible

i never really did much c# but i did javascript/ecmascript so i actually kind of did as tons of shit is lifted from C# lol i guess typescript is even closer seeing as it actually has hard typing lol

@OREYG what makes you say that?

they say vala is like c# but compiles to c and makes GObject GTK GUI programming more easy

More like Total Conversion.

@@Capewearer it's to C what The Frontier is to Fallout

@@rusi6219 likely what Arcane Dimensions to Quake one is: the true sequel.

@@Capewearer I think you mean to say what crack life is to half life.

@@rusi6219 that's true for Rust.

That's not a problem of Qt but the problem of your badly designed application or your lack of understanding of Qt. Qt is still (one of) the best tool for professional grade desktop applications.

Нет, это был Новокузнецк. Но в 2gis я тоже чуть-чуть работал.

TCL is hell 😭

I was looking for that comment thanks

my c++ code is filled with standard C library shit lol, it's deceptively close to ansi C under the hood the way i play with it lol but man i love the namespaces, i kind of use them as (strictlt public) classes to organize and categorize my codebase, but it's mostly just good old structs and pointers under the hood, i don't even bother with c++ class implementation, but i do love the namespaces

lol

well that can't be entirely true C++ was literally a C library for over a decade at bell laboratories, until c++ was standardized to its own standard in 1998 lol of course C compilers were updated with new tricks to support more things for the library in C as it evolved, before c++ became its own thing but it was still a newer ISO standard of C rather than a C++ compiler. before 1998, C was the only one that could do C++ lol there's a reason pretty much every C++ compiler can compile C, they wouldn't all go out and implement backward support for C in their C++ compilers for shits and giggles, it was already there because it evolved from C that's pretty much the only reason they almost all can and do, C is the cause, not the effect lol

Alexey based on his commit history

zozin

c is more easy that's all and it's not complex as c++

@@Phantom-lr6cs complex with bloat is bad, not good.

@@Phantom-lr6cs Easy/not complex is good for C's goal; a language that can be ported to new computers so we don't have to start over writing the entire operating system. C++ is bloat incarnate by comparison, and the one feature it added that was of relevance for that goal was a more detailed memory model. C++ comes with two glaring issues: it's always messier to use C++ features than plain C, and the library maintainers obsessively rename things.

...because it's MUCH better.

Well if you tried C you a) wouldn't have to imagine and b) find out that you're wrong

@@rusi6219 I have done it in C for less complicated projects. How am I wrong ? You literally have to do things more manually in C.

@@rusi6219 c and c++ is unsafe

Is he wrong tho?

Bruh corporate engineers spam right after every statement at work holy shit it’s like shadow clones 🤦🏾‍♂️

Actually its been demonstrated that virtual function calls and function calls by themselves cannot be distinguished by performance at all. Its functionally random on modern hardware to determine which is more performant at any instance (ignoring what its specifically doing, I'm referring to the call itself) if you make a function call or a virtual function call in the machine code.

sorry, this terminology was only valid upto c++98

fuck classes i only care about the namespaces templates can be handy in a pinch too :D

@@nirajandata Not even then really, it was only valid around 40 years ago when C++ was still "C with Classes" and still transpiled down to C.

so like rock paper scissor

Actually Rust curls up into a corner and cries.

​@@rusi6219 why

@@arson5304 because of its atrocious userbase.

​@@arson5304afaik Rust is barely used in enterprise software, and it is significantly higher level. the comparison of C, C++ vs Rust is questionable

u won't be missed

He's joking. He programs in a bunch of languages, and makes the same sarcastic statements for all of them.