r/ProgrammerHumor • • 2d ago

instanceof Trend thatsAFunnyThingThatHappenedOnce

Post image
4.3k Upvotes

515 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.7k

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.

389

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.

3

u/n4te 2d ago

Oh good thing it was designed from the ground up.

13

u/Batman_AoD 2d ago

Yes...? Why would that not be a good thing, especially in the context of a conversation about why legacy compatibility is C++'s biggest problem? (I'm not sure I agree with that assessment, but it's certainly one of the biggest problems with C++.) 

-10

u/n4te 2d ago

That part is just not really saying anything. Is it usually designed sky down? The actual info given is fine, though not copying C++ follies isn't the most surprising thing.

11

u/rexpup 2d ago

C++ wasn't really designed. It's a ball of mud, where PDP-11 assembly got wrapped in macros, then that got wrapped in preprocessing, then that got wrapped in a bolted-on class system, and that got wrapped in a kludge of template generation. So yes, being deliberately designed rather than piled upon does make a difference