> Well, I still rely a lot on having a proper type system to do checks at > compile time. For example I have separate types for line counts, byte
Proper..., good word for saying a pain in the ass. One of the best thing of C (and C++ because they share this part) is automatic conversions that remove this work of the programmer. If you have problems with them maybe you should learn a bit more. > counts and char counts, so I get a compilatin error if I try to add > bytes and char, while still getting the conveniences of using operators, > and with code that compiles down to plain int operations. Operator overloading, one of the worst things of C++ (well, there are so much of them that is only more of them). It only is useful to make obfuscated code. > Another example would be safe_ptr<T>, pointers that compiles to raw pointers > in optimized builds, but that guarantee that the pointed to object is alive > (you get an assert if an object dies when a safe_ptr to them still exists). > It stills behave like a pointer, but allows me to both document, and get > debug checks, that the pointed to object should by design outlive this > pointer. I don't need this damaged brain pointers, again if you have this kind of problems you should learn a bit more. Like a friend of mine says, code in C is like sex, you have to know what you are doing. > C++ is not the most elegant language, but there is nothing better available > IMHO. C89's minimalism is attractive, but no overloading, no generics, and > weak type system makes it harder than necessary to manage complexity. And > modern C (99 and 11) does have its own ugly quirks (the magically overloaded > tgmath.h functions, 'complex' builtin type...). No generic is a feature. Generic are very stupid idea that only creates blown binaries (this is one of the point I don't like about C11). Also, the compexity of generics in a lenguage with automatic conversions like C (and C++) is too much. > A common symptom of C's lacking abstraction facilities is the reliance on > linked lists as the most common list data structure. As it is so easy to > implement you add do it quickly for any struct, when in practice a dynamic > array provides you with much better performance characteristics. Depend. Basically depend of the size and the operations you do in it. I suppose you know that inserting in a dynamic array is O(n^2), and of course, searches in an unordered array is O(n), while inserting in the head of a list is O(k). There is a limit in the size where almost operations in dynamic arrays are slower, and in a lot of times with this small sizes you can use overdimensioned arrays that are far faster than dynamic arrays. Stop this C++ proselytism because the only thing you are going to get is becoming a troll. If you like maschoshism is your problem, but please don't tell to us. Regards, -- Roberto E. Vargas Caballero
