[quotemstr]

> you've botched the hasA vs isA association

No you haven't.

In many senses, C++ inheritance is just shorthand for composition. That's why things like private inheritance are useful. Through this lens, virtual inheritance is automatic composition in which multiple composed objects each have a pointer to some shared object (the virtual base). It doesn't mess with hasA vs. isA at all.

> knowing what subset of C++ to use

This idea that a good coding standard necessarily bans parts of C++ has done massive damage to the C++ community. The correct subset of C++ to use is C++. Turning off parts of the language is just a cheap way to look sagacious while infantilizing developers. Every feature has its place.

[vvanders]

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree here.

There's a been a fair number of projects I've worked on where exceptions and RTTI introduced too much memory/perf overhead so we explicitly didn't use them. I don't feel like we were worse off for not having them.

[quotemstr]

I prefer not to work on projects that ban exceptions and RTTI. These features (especially exceptions) are important parts of the language, and without them, you can't reliably use most of the standard library (see bad_alloc) and can't really deliver value semantics, since you need awful hacks like two-phase initialization to communicate failure.

C++-without-exceptions is a very different and much worse language.

[vvanders]

If you're interested in limiting your market, there's a whole embedded and high performance space where this is critical.

Considering LLVM takes the same stance[1] and they're the ones implementing language features that's good enough for me.

[1] http://llvm.org/docs/CodingStandards.html#do-not-use-rtti-or...

[quotemstr]

> If you're interested in limiting your market, there's a whole embedded and high performance space where this is critical.

Well, it's a preference, not a hard requirement. I'll hold my nose and work on such a codebase if there are other reasons, like the project itself being very interesting.

> Considering LLVM takes the same stance

IMHO, that's a mistake. But LLVM is an example of a project that's compelling enough to work on despite what I consider a set of poor language choices.