Excellent article. I'm not sure I agree with all the points, but none of them are stupid or necessarily wrong. It's a very constructive argument.
I've been thinking for a while that the problem with C++ is that 100 decisions have been made both in the library & language and in "best practice" that all individually are good, but the combined effect has been unfortunate.
I'm not quite getting from the article why you can't write in the C "subset" of C++ and add in a few of the more helpful parts of C++ though.
> I'm not quite getting from the article why you can't write in the C "subset" of C++ and add in a few of the more helpful parts of C++ though.
I think this is because of C++ name mangling, which prevents the creation of a quick and dirty reflection system. And maybe compilation times, which must be higher since the compiler has to deal with all of C++, even if you don't.
I've been thinking for a while that the problem with C++ is that 100 decisions have been made both in the library & language and in "best practice" that all individually are good, but the combined effect has been unfortunate.
I'm not quite getting from the article why you can't write in the C "subset" of C++ and add in a few of the more helpful parts of C++ though.