What do linux-fags have against C++...

What do linux-fags have against C++? Is it because they have no original thoughts of their own and their daddy Linus said it's bad?

Other urls found in this thread:

harmful.cat-v.org/software/c /linus
geoff.greer.fm/vim/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>unironically post the creator of c++ and linux user

It's too fast and not dynamic enough for brainlets.

Linus has said every language sucks except C

His opinion is worthless and his kernel is for brainlets

Bjarne uses Windows actually

C++ was supposed to be a better C? Yet it never could surpass that piece of shit C is, what a joke

C++ is a historical failure.

Its because C++ tried to take C and introduce the shitty parts of every single other language.
It tries to do too much and it just ends up a heaping mess of shit.

The brainlet's way of compensating for their bad self-image is to conform to the opinions of popular brainlets.

>they have no original thoughts of their own and their daddy Linus said it's bad?
you answered your own question

Uses Linux. He wants to be platform independent anyway.

non-brainlets use java

Which kernel is for (brainlets)^-1?

>It tries to do too much and it just ends up a heaping mess of shit.
Nice parroting faggot. Do you even understand what you're talking about?

I've always wondered how nice the Linux kernel with be with zero-cost abstractions.
If Linus' garbage didn't get popular someone else's kernel project would probably be turned into the FOSS OS instead.

>I've always wondered how nice the Linux kernel with be with zero-cost abstractions.

What do you mean? Wouldn't abstractions give you less control/view of the kernel

>3 standard libraries
>still no modules
""""improved C""""
LMAO

C++ has practically zero (0) use cases over C, now that Rust is out it's ACTUALLY FASTER than C++ while being objectively safer (not the vaporware called safe C++)

C++ is going to die in the next 20 years

The edge.

Depends on how many layers of abstraction you're running in.

ITT: people trying to impress middle school girls by being the edgiest kid around

>t. Ruby brainlet
Shouldn't you be on reddit?

As for now, Rust is a fucking mess as much as C++ (even latest versions, 11/14)

The problem with this languages is that they don't have a strong predefined idiomacy.

Take Go for example: while it won't be liked for its semplicity by everybody, it's main 'pro' is the conventions established by the community and the developers. Formatting, testing, naming; everything has a rule, making easier to read/maintain someone else's code.

With Rust and C++ (and, frankly, with every other language) you have so much style fragmentation that it's just not worth spending time with it. Code review is literally an hell of a job with them. Besides, their learning curve is shit

There is no standardized name-mangling convention for C++, even on well-established platform. Strictly speaking, I don't think the C standard says anything about name mangling either, but on Windows and Linux, there is a convention that is followed across compilers, allowing code compiled with one compiler to link to code compiled with another compiler. This is not the case with C++, unless you wrap the code in an extern "C" block, at which point you might as well just be writing C anyways.

Secondly, C++'s ``OOP" model is flawed by making private members a part of the public interface of the class, when they should be a hidden implementation detail. Even the opaque pointer idiom, usable even in pure C, provides better encapsulation.

Java performance is an oxymoron. It's basically statically typed, ENTERPRISE QUALITY Python with C syntax.

isn't C++ just 'c with classes'

>isn't C++ just 'c with classes'

No, it's C with closures.

C++ is a rolling release language with 2 standard libraries with no standard ABI or standard dependency management tool

No, it's C with AIDS.

i'm a linuxfag and i only work with c++ or python if i feel like turning my brain off

>2 standard libraries
oh no! it is compatible with C.

C++ faggots can go fuck themselves, it'll never have the speed or minimalism of C89

>stl, libc and boost

are you implying this is a problem?
Legacy features are in libc
Data containers are in stl
Experimental features are in boost

You can use all or none of these libraries.
I don't see how it is a negative for C++

ada is better

kek how sad

Great argument

C++ is a huge language but you don't have to use every single feature. I'm sure even people who have been using C++ full-time for years have never touched large swaths of the language.

Not a single argument ITT refuting Linus: harmful.cat-v.org/software/c /linus
>C++ is a horrible language. It's made more horrible by the fact that a lot of substandard programmers use it, to the point where it's much much easier to generate total and utter crap with it. Quite frankly, even if the choice of C were to do *nothing* but keep the C++ programmers out, that in itself would be a huge reason to use C.
>In other words: the choice of C is the only sane choice. I know Miles Bader jokingly said "to piss you off", but it's actually true. I've come to the conclusion that any programmer that would prefer the project to be in C++ over C is likely a programmer that I really *would* prefer to piss off, so that he doesn't come and screw up any project I'm involved with.
>limiting your project to C means that people don't screw that up, and also means that you get a lot of programmers that do actually understand low-level issues and don't screw things up with any idiotic "object model" crap.
Anyone who thinks contrary is just butthurt that they will never be allowed to touch actual worthwhile code with their stinking language.

Because he himself makes no argument besides name calling, as usual?

>it's much much easier to generate total and utter crap with it
>not applicable to C

Linus can comfortably claim that it's harder to generate crappy code in C, given that he just doesn't merge any pull request that doesn't fit his exacting requirements.
Anyone who's had the misfortune of dealing with entrenched legacy codebases written by people who don't care about anything resembling code maintainability or documentation (read: EEs) would beg to differ.

because rms thinks cpp is "ugly" that why

Maybe that was true back then, but today the average C++ programmer is significantlly more skilled than the average C programmer.

>C programmers don't write bad code
geoff.greer.fm/vim/

>geoff.greer.fm/vim/

if you think that is bad code you have seen nothing my friend.

you have to be significantly more skilled to write the same program in C++ than C and make it easy to understand and maintain.

>the average C++ programmer is significantlly more skilled than the average C programmer
AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
No.

>you have to be significantly more skilled to write the same program in C++ than C
No.

>and make it easy to understand and maintain.
Well...maybe.

As someone said above, C++'s problem is style fragmentation. Clean C++ is hard to find.

>C
>name mangling
You just proved you don't know shit. C doesn't support function overloading.

It takes really long to compile, I don't have that kind of computing power and/or time.

That's decent and it's commented so it's ok. Programs that need to support many platforms and compilers end up having to macros.
It would be nice if there were some kind of module system where you could have file for shared stuff and separed files platform specific stuff but that will never happen.

You CAN do that in C though. You provide a common definition, in some header file, and then have multiple source files which implement it on different platforms. Your build system decides which one to compile+link based on the platform.
Due to the absurd amount of feature test macros that VIM function had, it probably wouldn't have helped much.

C++14 is just fucking good. Anyone who denies is a brainlet faggot.

I liked C++, then C++11 and C++14 really fucked _everything_ up for the sake of hipster coding shit like lambdas and move semantics. I understand why move semantics are desirable but when it takes the language from lvalue/rvalue to the complete mess of prvalue/xvalue/etc now, it's not really worth it to be able to move internal data pointers. There's a reason everyone ended up with smart pointers with a .clone() call.

I try to code in more C these days to avoid the flaming garbage pile that is modern C++ which is practically unreadable.

C takes almost as much

You're completely wrong. A typical C program will compile MUCH quicker than a C++ program. C++ has garbage like templates which causes the same shit to compiled over and over again.
Go compile Linux, then go compile chromium or some shit and then tell me which one was quicker.

> What do linux-fags have against C++? Is it because they have no original thoughts of their own and their daddy Linus said it's bad?

NT is written in C++ for the most part because C++ was hip in the 90s

Gaynuu/Lunik is written in C for the most part, because C was hip in the 70s

Linux was written in the 90s, idiot.

>Is it because they have no original thoughts of their own and their daddy Linus said it's bad

Yes.

>hipster coding shit like lambdas

Lambdas are awesome, you suck.

I wrote heaps of C++ back in university, which was pre-C++11. What's the tl;dr of what I've missed?

...

Should I get this haircut?

The only really bad thing about C++ is its standard library. You can't even trim a string without writing your own function or using Boost. Also writing classes in C++ is fucking awful compared to Java/C#.

Yes

In some sense, reviewing C++ is harder than C, due to the hidden behaviour that also makes it powerful. This is a valid complaint.
However, it is also easier to write correct C++ than correct C, given C++'s stronger type system and class invariants.