Anyone else feel like C++ is getting too complicated?

In article <sfVKl.27871$>,
says...

[ ... ]

> The suggestion of course was that use of C++ today is an exotic but the
> nicer thing is just not yet available.

It isn't exotic as long as it's used in lots of mainstream applications.
That hasn't happened to C++ yet, and I'm not sure it will any time soon.
It will undoubtedly happen sometime, but exactly how soon I'm uncertain.
There aren't many languages around (right now) that could replace C++ in
a lot of applications, and the few that realistically _could_ (e.g. Ada
95) strike me as extremely unlikely to do so. Of course, at least in
theory, you could write anything in almost any language if you wanted to
badly enough -- but I can't quite imagine anybody deciding to write a
JVM in Lisp, a graphics engine in COBOL, or an operating system kernel
in Fortran.

[ ... ]

> 'twas what I was kinda alluding to, yes, but certainly not the emphasis on
> "special purpose", as they will be "practically general purpose" rather than
> "extremely general purpose".

Well, there are certainly a number of applications (e.g. network stuff)
where the performance of something like Java or Perl is perfectly
adequate for quite a few purposes. These certainly form a large class of
applications, but I don't see them growing to the point that they really
relegate C++ to "exotic" status anytime soon.

> > As far as general-purpose languages go, however, I don't think it'll
> > be reasonable to completely neglect things like performance of
> > containers any time soon. It's been predicted for decades, but
> > reality hasn't followed suit.
>
> But the GP languages of today are the exotics.

In that case, I can only guess that you're defining "exotic" rather
differently than anybody else I know about.

At one time, for a short while, C++ was a "hot" language -- claimed by
many to be the cure of all the ills of programming in general. That made
it a default choice of languages for a lot of projects to which it was,
quite frankly, not particularly well suited (including some for which it
was really poorly suited). The language of the month club being how it
is, however, that dubious honor has long since passed on to other
languages. As such, C++ is now more often chosen for other reasons. That
has undoubtedly reduced its usage somewhat, but not nearly to the point
that I can imagine calling it exotic -- and the same is true for most of
the other general purpose languages as well.

[ ... ]

> The fact that so many languages have been developed and are still be
> developed does not bode well for the GP language pursuit: apparently "GP
> language" is an oxymoron.

Two basic points: first of all, you're right to a limited degree -- not
really about the languages themselves, but about the terminology.
Nothing (C++ or anything else) is equally suited to every possible task.
At the same time, the use for C++ and similar languages still exists;
the language remains useful regardless of the fact that I don't know of
a way to describe the type of situation for which it's best suited in a
word or two. The problem there is that despite it's not being entirely
general purpose, the tasks for which it is well suited vary over a
rather wide range.

--
Later,
Jerry.

The universe is a figment of its own imagination.

Jerry Coffin

Jerry Coffin wrote:
> In article <sfVKl.27871$>,
> says...
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> The suggestion of course was that use of C++ today is an exotic but
>> the nicer thing is just not yet available.
>
> It isn't exotic as long as it's used in lots of mainstream
> applications.

No, that is not correct. (See "Holocaust").

>> 'twas what I was kinda alluding to, yes, but certainly not the
>> emphasis on "special purpose", as they will be "practically general
>> purpose" rather than "extremely general purpose".
>
> Well, there are certainly a number of applications (e.g. network
> stuff) where the performance of something like Java or Perl is
> perfectly adequate for quite a few purposes. These certainly form a
> large class of applications, but I don't see them growing to the
> point that they really relegate C++ to "exotic" status anytime soon.

You are thinking way too narrowly: you chose an IT (read: within the
forrest) "domain". Think out of the box.

>
>>> As far as general-purpose languages go, however, I don't think it'll
>>> be reasonable to completely neglect things like performance of
>>> containers any time soon. It's been predicted for decades, but
>>> reality hasn't followed suit.
>>
>> But the GP languages of today are the exotics.
>
> In that case, I can only guess that you're defining "exotic" rather
> differently than anybody else I know about.

But you don't know anyone else (but yourself), do you? (?)

>
> At one time, for a short while, C++ was a "hot" language

I remember that! I "had learned" C (read made low-volume production programs
in C, having suffered with handed-down handed-over "engineered" (code not
engineered, but made by engineers not of the IT variety) FORTRAN and even
BASIC ) and was "burning it in to my mind or trying to find the "what am I
missing in all this?"" via (available at my place of employment) video tapes
from Borland featuring David Intersimone! (I'd time-travel back, (in a
second! (not for a second!)) then for a few of the girls that actually
wanted something with me! Yowza!). Some people were suggesting I should
"take a look at C++". I did, a few years later, as it was a natural
progression..... long story short, now I'm here to perturb y'all.

> -- claimed by
> many to be the cure of all the ills of programming in general.

Do you think that it is the solution to the H1N1 virus? If I didn't know
English, reading this NG would lead me to "BELIEVE" (REPENT! Ye all
sinners... REPENT!) that C++ could defeat Megalon. (Aside: Is Infra Man
still living?).

> That
> made it a default choice of languages for a lot of projects to which
> it was, quite frankly,

[got A LOT of money for "consultantcies"!]

> not particularly well suited (including some
> for which it was really poorly suited).

What? ... What??? I thought C was a GENERAL PURPOSE language. (WTF?!).
(Lawsuits abound).

> The language of the month

But it was the old timer! (Go figure).

> club being how it is, however, that dubious honor has long since
> passed on to other languages. As such, C++ is now more often chosen
> for other reasons.

History has repeated itself and we are talking about history.

> That has undoubtedly reduced its usage somewhat,

Are you sad?

> but not nearly to the point that I can imagine calling it exotic --

"Death and taxes". (DEATH, and taxes?? (see: Joe Black)).

> and the same is true for most of the other general purpose languages
> as well.

May I have some "peanut butter"? I find it astonishingly good.

[Epitaph snipped]

Tony