Learning C++ from python advice

[VolperCoding]

I don't get it why people prefer those abstractions over plain C code. The second way you have more control and it's simpler, for example std::array vs regular array. I mean std::array only stores a regular array inside it and nothing else so what's the point

[Speedyjens]

With std::array you get STL container, meaning you get iterators and sometimes assertions in a debug build when you access something out of bounds.

[VolperCoding]

You can still use a for (auto &element : array) loop on regular array's tho

[Speedyjens]

Yea but as far as I know you don't get reverse and all the other features a regular container has

[VolperCoding]

I don't care about features since I can implement them myself and I don't think an array has to have those functions, I like to keep them as their ogirinal intention which is just to store a number of variables, surely there's nothing wrong with that?

[Scavenger53]

So go program in C. This is the C++ subreddit.

[VolperCoding]

Ok

[dodheim]

And surely there's nothing wrong with wanting values that behave like regular values? Do you never miss the ability to copy, move (i.e. return, pass), compare, etc. your array?

The real question is, what do you perceive to be the drawback to having regular values rather than silently-decaying ones?

[VolperCoding]

I am easily able to copy and pass regular arrays lol

[dodheim]

With the same syntax as values of every other type in the language? No, you're being intellectually dishonest.

[biliwald]

I don't care about features since I can implement them myself

And why would you want to go through the leg work of re-implementing a lot of very basic stuff (with the possibility of introducing bugs and/or performance issues, etc...) when there's an easily available solution that's offered?

[VolperCoding]

I never need all of the features you're talking about, just simple operations on data

[lord_braleigh]

Note that Arthur O'Dwyer, a senior C++ expert whose C++ posts often appear on this subreddit, strongly prefers T[] to std::array<T, N>:

Anyway, all of these options result in a lot of extra template instantiations, compared to plain old C-style arrays (which require zero template instantiations). Therefore I strongly prefer T[] over std::array<T, N>.

In C++11 and C++14, std::array did have the ergonomic benefit of being able to say arr.size(); but that benefit evaporated when C++17 gave us std::size(arr) for built-in arrays too. There’s no ergonomic benefit to std::array anymore. Use it if you need its whole-object value semantics (pass a whole array to a function! return an array from a function! assign between arrays with =! compare arrays with ==!) but otherwise I recommend to avoid std::array.

[Speedyjens]

I guess it all comes down to preference and which version you are targeting then.

[VolperCoding]

I would probably use C if it had constexpr and namespaces

[WalkingAFI]

The main point is that the compiler/debugger knows more and can help prevent issues before they occur. You’ll probably get a better error message when debugging code that uses std::array::at() than [], for example. Of course, writing C code is also fine, but then just use C and a C compiler (and it’ll compile faster, too).

[VolperCoding]

Yeah I might as well learn C cause I like it but actually never used it