"Within C++, there is a much smaller and cleaner language struggling to get out."
-- Bjarne Stroustrup, The Design and Evolution of C++
@fribbledom that language is C with namespacing and member functions on types.
And maybe some better libraries that use it.
@jasper @fribbledom Whenever I write C (which isn’t too often these days), I only use the Plan 9 libraries. They’re close enough to posix to be familiar, but fix a ton of problems, and are generally much more consistent and pleasant.
Ken made a bunch of extensions to the Plan 9 C compiler (I *think* including member functions?), but those don’t help when you’re not on Plan 9 (as opposed to the libraries, which you can use on almost any UNIX-like system).
@fribbledom Which is pretty much just C.
You should see the development times with C projects vs C++ projects. C programming takes less time to get things done than C++ programming does on average.
It is not intuitive, but engineers only need 1 or 2 simple ways to make a piece of hardware do things in the first place.
In embedded systems, about 70% of the programming share is still C as of 2018.
But that said, I like language design. C++ is kind of cool, if you can get devs to behave and only use 1 portion of it at time.
And hardware diverse systems tend to have nearly C compliant compilers instead of standard ones. C++ is something you would find on a fancier system.
So the statistics are not really true. We use C-ish language to avoid straight binary or assembler language. And this is due to C compilers being easy to write. But LLVM and the like may change this.
"Any sufficiently complicated ... program contains an ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of Common Lisp."
-- Greenspun's tenth rule of programming
Server run by the main developers of the project It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!