163
Does this exist anywhere outside of C++?
(lemmy.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Apr 2025
163 points (95.5% liked)
Programmer Humor
35048 readers
147 users here now
Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)
Rules:
- Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
- No NSFW content.
- Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
If you write to a text (as opposed to binary) stream, \n produces \n or \r\n (or \r if old enough) depending on platform just fine.
Nobody should be using C++ anyway, but plenty of languages have silly system newline constants, which do nothing useful.
Why should no one be using c++?
It's memory unsafe and it's syntax is indistinguishable from the runes which summon cthulu.
I think the memory stuff is pretty good nowadays. I'm sure I saw modern C++ can have a garbage collector. And the syntax is only runelike until you learn it, like any language really. As an industry C# developer I've recently taken up C++ as a hobby to better learn the workings of low level code and I've been enjoying it so far.
c# has lovely syntax and languages like it and python are pretty readable with basic coding knowledge. C++ if you don't know a symbol there's too many options and the risk of misunderstanding is too high.
I will agree with your claim "if you learn the syntax then you know the syntax" but I don't find this valuable.
Memory unsafe C++ is a choice. With modern C++ you have no excuse for accessing raw pointers or arrays without range checking if memory safety is a priority.
Yeah, just don't make any mistakes and you'll be fine. Come on guys, how hard can it be?
As I said: There are tools in place in modern C++ that are designed to catch the errors you make. If you are using a raw pointer when you could have used a reference, or accessing an array without range checking, those are choices you've made. They may be valid choices in your use-case, but don't go complaining that the language is "unsafe" when it gives you the option to code with guard rails and you choose to forgo them.
I'm a full time C++ developer, mostly doing high performance data processing and some visualization and TUI tools, and as someone loving C++, it's not as simple as you frame it. In sufficiently complex code you still have to deal with these problems. Rust has some good mechanisms in place to avoid these and there are things on the way for c++26 though.
I don't mean to say that C++ is in any way without faults. If performance is crucial, that can definitely be a reason to forgo some of the guard-rails, and then you're on your own.
I guess my issue with the "C++ is unsafe"-trope, is that it usually (in my experience) comes from people not having heard of all the guard-rails in the first place, or refusing to use them when appropriate. They write C++ as if they were writing C, and then complain that the language is unsafe when they've made a mistake that is easily avoided using stl-containers.
Yes I agree on that. A lot of people write "C with classes" and then complain...