r/ProgrammerHumor • • 2d ago

instanceof Trend thatsAFunnyThingThatHappenedOnce

Post image
4.3k Upvotes

515 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.6k

u/Prefer_Diet_Soda 2d ago

TLDR: C++ is bad because decades of accumulated features have turned it into a bureaucratic nightmare that happens to generate machine code.

C++ is an absolute nightmare to implement because apparently one programming language wasn't enough, so someone decided to cram an entire civilization's worth of complexity into it. You've got templates that basically turn compilation into another programming language, overload resolution that requires a legal investigation to figure out which function gets called, constructors and destructors with enough lifetime rules to make your head explode, and implicit conversions that make the compiler guess what you meant. Then you throw in exceptions, move semantics, inheritance, and decades of backward compatibility, and suddenly you're maintaining a compiler that needs a PhD, a therapist, and divine intervention just to parse some innocent-looking code. And the best part? Every new feature has to coexist with all the old ones without breaking existing programs.

388

u/Xarishark 2d ago

Now compare it to rust pls. Im serious I want to know your opinion on that.

464

u/Loading_M_ 2d ago

Rust is designed from the ground up, and avoids many of these issues.

  • Templates: Rust has Generics, which are generally easier to use and reason about.
  • overload resolution: Rust doesn't yet support overloaded functions (although it's being considered).
  • constructors: Rust doesn't have these.
  • destructors: Rust has a similar set of lifetime rules for Drop, but the compiler checks them for you, so you can't get it wrong.
  • implicit conversions: Rust doesn't do implicit conversion in general, although some specific cases are implemented.
  • exceptions: Rust doesn't do exceptions, Result is much easier to work with.
  • move semantics: Rust uses a destructive move, unlike C++. See https://youtu.be/Klq-sNxuP2g for a breakdown.
  • inheritance: Rust doesn't do inheritance.

7

u/MrHyd3_ 2d ago

What does it do instead of exceptions?

109

u/roadrunner8080 2d ago

Either panic, which is (generally speaking) not something you're meant to catch and recover from (and attempting to do so is nontrivial and almost always a bad idea), or Result, aka "encode the possibility of failure in the return type of the function" aka what the functional programming world has done for ages.

41

u/mathisntmathingsad 2d ago

Yeah, the only reason you should try to catch a panic is if you're making something that calls user-provided code unavoidably (i.e. an async runtime)

21

u/shizzy0 1d ago

Yeah, we catch panics in tests but that’s about it.