But it will take some time until the compilers and libraries catch up.īut I sometimes wonder if taking a full plunge into functional languages is not better. D2 as a language provides an excellent replacement. But, a language to replace it needs to reach a pretty damn broad adoption and acceptance before it even gets close. I’m a recovered C++ hater myself (mostly because I used to be a Symbian programmer). OS X via XCode, rather than MacPorts).Ĭ++ is not the “optimal” solution by any means. They do clean up a lot of code, but it will still take some years until everyone supports them (e.g. I played with some of the new features in fresh g++ versions. I know that C++0x provides lambdas and some type inference. Granted that garbage collection would make closures safer and more natural… What do you mean here? Language support for lambdas and type inference are exactly what C++0x is bringing to table (and currying is trivial when you have lambdas). Also, I am working on my own programming language in my spare time, mainly just for fun, that has all of the features I want. D2 is the best option I know of, but it’s not yet ready. Also, it’s missing a lot of features such as generics/templates. Go is the only “modern” language I know of that has a syntax even worse than C++ (not counting esoteric languages, of course). I’ll admit that I do love all the power that C++ gives you (there is no way I could write a variant type in any other language I know of, obviously not counting languages with it built in), but I don’t see why a “powerful” language has to make so many mistakes. I have written my own variant class using C++0x’s variadic templates, which makes the error messages nice, and the compile times much faster, but it’s not feature complete yet. Boost.Variant gives some really bad error messages. Also, the main feature I find myself wanting in C++ is something like algebraic data types. The biggest problem is just the inconsistent, complicated syntax. Obviously, there is some manual memory management involved (although that makes sense, given C++’s purpose). Do you hate the kind of C++ you use with Qt? Because it’s pretty much the same as using Java.Ĭ++ with Qt is certainly better than using C++ with any other library I know of, however it’s not quite like Java.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |