/tech/ - Technology★

He meant that flaws of C++, as he recalls from when he studied the matter around 1990, include syntax and semantics. As for syntax, its grammar is ambiguous, and it is gratuitously incompatible with C, which blocks the smooth upgrade path from C to C++.

As for semantics, the abstract object facility of C++ is designed around the case where the real type of an object is known at compile time. However, in that case, abstract objects are equivalent to a naming convention for functions to call. The case where abstract objects add real power to a language is when the type is not known until run time. C++ does handle that, but it seems to be an afterthought, a poor relation.

He suspects that he would find plenty of ugliness in the template library, but he doesn't know. That was added to C++ after he studied it.

>>733048

C++ is ugly because C is ugly.

>By contrast, I find Rust quite ugly.

>The flaws of Rust, as I recall from when I studied the matter around 1990, include syntax and semantics. As for syntax, its grammar is ambiguous, and it is gratuitously incompatible with C, which blocks the smooth upgrade path from C to Rust.

>As for semantics, the abstract object facility of Rust is designed around the case where the real type of an object is known at compile time. However, in that case, abstract objects are equivalent to a naming convention for functions to call. The case where abstract objects add real power to a language is when the type is not known until run time. Rust does handle that, but it seems to be an afterthought, and a poor relation.

>I suspect that I would find plenty of ugliness in the template library, but I don't know. That was added to Rust after I studied it.