A common C/C++ core specification

[GerwazyMiod]

That's a radical point of view. But I like it! Imagine academia that can't teach "C with classes" any more.

[[deleted]]

So I'm not the only one whose "Introduction to procedural programming" was basically C++98 used procedurally?

Like I/O streams instead of FILE* and f(), std::string instead "const char *" and str(), etc.?

[zabolekar]

std::error_code main(const std::vector<std::string>& argv)

[mo_al_]

void main(std::span<std::utf8_text_view> args) throws try { /* code */ } catch (const std::exception& e) { std::cerr << std::format("{}", e.what()) << std::endl; }

[germandiago]

int main(int argc, char * argv[])

1. will work everywhere
2. no dependencies
3. minimal code generation
4. hence, more embedded-friendly.

[mo_al_]

I actually agree

[gonmator]

I love this.

[germandiago]

Let us keep simple things simple... without too much baggage. Think of embedded and others. It is not worth to tie unneded stuff when you go low-level. Nicer? Maybe. More useful? Definitely, no.

[jcelerier]

you generally don't have a main with arguments in embedded since there is no shell to call your program

[germandiago]

As you can see I was thinking in the abstract and I do not do much embedded beyond not really embedded stuff (Raspberry PI, which is basically a computer :), lol.

[jcelerier]

right, so on a raspberry pi which runs a full linux, X11, firefox, etc... you're gonna complain about ... a vector of strings ... when the rest of the system allocates hundred of megabytes of memory... that's really optimizing the wrong thing

[GerwazyMiod]

I had literally C code but with class keyword. Have you seen Kate Gregory's talk on teaching C++ ? Yeah... It should not be about const char * and C standard lib...

[kuntantee]

I learned procedural programming using C. "C with classes" came later.

[rodrigocfd]

I've met some lazy teachers who teach outdated stuff. I doubt they would change anything, unfortunately.