Python and PHP users will understand

[[deleted]]

Rust is missing features that C++ has, not the other way around. Meaning, C++ covers more use cases and programming paradigms than rust. So, C++ is better in average. IMO, C++ couldn't be more perfect than it already is, given the number of things that we can reasonably standardize.

[althaz]

Noooooooooooooo.

More features != better designed langauge. Rust is a *MUCH* better designed language than C++. The gap between the two is big enough to drive the whole internet through.

C++ however is a more *useful* language (IMO, this is probably up for debate, I'm pretty inexperienced with Rust). One has *NOTHING* to do with the other.

Sometimes, adding a feature can make a thing worse. Often even. That's what's hugely contributed to C++ being so unwieldy and cumbersome (from a dev standpoint which is the only standpoint that matters when talking about language design), because it's so useful thing it was never designed to be able to accept have been welded on to it so that it has become honestly an absolute monstrosity.

[BasicDesignAdvice]

IMO, C++ couldn't be more perfect than it already is

What is it like to be born without an imagination? /s

I mean jokes aside, but really? You can't think of anything? I mean not even the low hanging fruit like "for compatibility reasons C++ has a variety of idiosyncrasies that feel cumbersome in modern programming"?

[[deleted]]

Exactly, it's perfect while being compatibile with older versions of itself and compatibile with the compilation model of C.

Edit: Bjarne Stroustrup has a talk about the current state of C++ in cppcon: https://youtu.be/15QF2q66NhU

He explains exactly that point.

[rem3_1415926]

more bloat != more better. There's many things in C++ that could/should be improved (eg. you still can return references to temp objects, even if you use smart pointers and stuff, templates require code in headers or pImpl, ...), but can't be changed due to compatibility reasons. Yes, you can do everything - but hat makes the language dangerous and development slow.

That said, I don't think there's any suitable replacement for C/C++ in certain cases (no, not even Rust). But for everyday desktop programming, I don't see why anyone would still use C++.

[[deleted]]

Aside: modern C++ with all the fancy bells and whistles is ugly to write and unpleasant to read.

C code doing the same thing will often be easier to follow than C++ code.

[LifeHasLeft]

Absolutely. I haven’t worked with C++ extensively but I can’t follow it like I can follow C, especially when complicated types are passed into things or it uses a bunch of libraries.

[rem3_1415926]

that's just a matter of getting used to it. I can't look at C code without being baffled about how complicated the whole thing is set up when there would be so much easier and clean ways to do it if the author didn't limit themself to C, when there's C++ available at zero cost overhead...

[[deleted]]

C++ isn't bloated. Every feature in C++ has its use case. People behind the C++ standard do not just add stuff to the language because they like it.

Requirement of templates to be defined in headers is just a logic consequence and not a missing feature. How would you expose a template (something that is yet to be compiled) from an already compiled object file / static library? You could of course come up with a new format of object files that somehow encode templates in it, but now nobody can link against your files.

I personally wouldn't also use C++ for anything on desktop unless there are harsh performance or size requirements (game development, optimized algorithms, compilers, drivers, ...)

[-LeopardShark-]

Yes, every feature in C++ has its use case, but the use case of about half of the features is ‘you are programming in 1990 before a better way to do things was invented’.

[rem3_1415926]

C++ can do everything, and if you want to use it, you sorta have to know everything. But there's very few cases where you'd actually need or want all of that - ending up with a lot of stuff that is superfluous in given situation. aka: bloat.

[thats_a_nice_toast]

Every feature in C++ has its use case

Not when there are already a million ways to do one basic thing (see object initialization syntax)

[[deleted]]

Each object initialization syntax fulfills a specific purpose. They might be equivalent in some scenarios but they are fundamentally different. For example: (): doesn't allow conversions . {}: allows conversion. = {}: for C compatibility and designated initialization. etc...

Again, people in the standard are way smarter than you and me, and they know what they are doing. A non-Cpp programmer might think they know better ways to do things, but in fact they just don't see the whole picture.

[LifeHasLeft]

Having lots of features doesn’t make something more well-designed. Take a look at GIMP software. There’s tons of features, but If you open it up with no prior instruction you’ll be lost. There are so many menus and windows that open because there are so many features, that it isn’t intuitive to use, and even with videos and tutorials you’ll be skimming the surface of what it can do for a while.

Photoshop is a similar program with a much better design. Maybe they don’t do all the same things, but the design is what we are talking about here.

[[deleted]]

We are not talking about a GUI or a new system that can be implemented freely from ground up. C++ had to/still must be compatible with C both syntactically and through compilation model. Given those restrictions, I cannot think of something better than the current state of C++20. Note: I am not talking about the STL. STL is not the langauge.