[api]

C++ is a language with a lot of features, and not all of them should be used in every code base. It's quite possible to write simple, portable, and relatively clean C++ code if you use only those features you need.

It's not the prettiest language by any stretch, but it's quite capable and fast and has excellent support across just about every platform.

[klik99]

I saw Stroustrup give a talk and he said exactly this - C++ is a toolbox of different paradigms that aren't meant to be combined. If you avoid frameworks that impose a particular paradigm and/or shield the parts of the codebase with different paradigms (for example when using Qt you really should have your "engine" running aside the Qt rather than embedding the code in the UI, extreme example I know but the same idea) you'll have a grab bag of different approaches for the specific problem you're having for zero cost. When people talk of "sticking to a subset" they are unknowingly doing exactly that (especially since everyones subset is slightly different).

There might be a "culture of complexity" in the community, but to remove the conflicting paradigms from C++ is to destroy what makes C++ useful. I don't believe C++ is complex in it's DNA, but highly experimental, overwhelming to newcomers and experienced developers alike (since you have to truly understand any feature before using it), and easily misunderstood. It requires more strictness in design and implementation than other languages, and isn't my first choice for anything that doesn't require high performance. But since I'm in game development and audio synthesis, it's often my only choice since nothing else hits that sweet spot of abstraction and performance.

[sempron64]

> If you avoid frameworks that impose a particular paradigm and/or shield the parts of the codebase with different paradigms...you'll have a grab bag of different approaches for the specific problem you're having for zero cost.

Avoiding frameworks and libraries which use unwanted language features and paradigms is very hard. Once these libraries are integrated, it is nearly impossible to restrict a team from using said features elsewhere in the project. Every C++ developer has pet features and features they hate and will never use, but these sets are rarely compatible between developers.

[convolvatron]

just a contrary opinion. I read the c++ book in the very early 90s. someone told me it was the future of programming.

every single c++ shop I've worked at since has said, 'well, yes the language is a mess, but if you stick to a well controlled subset, its really pretty good'

and all of those shops, without exception, have dragged in every last weird and contradictory feature of what is a really enormous language. so I guess the 'sane subset' argument is ok in theory, but really not in practice.

i've actually seen some really* clever mixin/metaprogramming with templates. it was a total disaster, and in a different environment it could be a really great approach. i could never understand it in complete detail, but if C is a 38 that you can use to blow your foot off, C++ is a 20ga shotgun with a pound of c4 strapped to your head.

[WalterBright]

> and all of those shops, without exception, have dragged in every last weird and contradictory feature of what is a really enormous language. so I guess the 'sane subset' argument is ok in theory, but really not in practice.

To be fair, this happens with every language I've been associated with, even C. Just look at those people who do metaprogramming with the C preprocessor. It's madness!

I used to do that too, as a young programmer. It took about 10 years to grind that out of me. One advantage of us older programmers is we show how clever we are by writing amazingly simple and understandable code. :-)

[dingo_bat]

> To be fair, this happens with every language I've been associated with, even C. Just look at those people who do metaprogramming with the C preprocessor. It's madness!

To be fair, C++ metaprogramming with templates makes C preprocessor look like an insignificant ant in front of a truck.

[maxxxxx]

"dragged in every last weird and contradictory feature of what is a really enormous language"

This happens with every language that has a lot of features. You have to try them before you can form an opinion.

[Footkerchief]

> This happens with every language that has a lot of features.

Seems like the key is to not have a lot of features, then.

[AnimalMuppet]

But languages with not a lot of features trap you unless you never need that feature (or unless you're fine with implementing that feature yourself in what the language gives you).

[maxxxxx]

Then we should be using FORTRAN 77 forever?

[coldtea]

>C++ is a language with a lot of features, and not all of them should be used in every code base.

That's not up to the individual coder coming later to a codebase. Or wanting to use a library that enforces those features, etc.

And the design of the features can impact how other features are implemented, even one doesn't use them.

[maxxxxx]

"Sticking to the features you need" is pretty hard to implement. Either you end up with a stale code base that doesn't use new and useful features. Or you start using new features and only later realize the headaches they may cause. Neither situation is desirable.