[saagarjha]

> C++ is mostly an abstraction layer over C.

That depends on how you write it. It’s possible to write C++ that bears no semblance to C whatsoever. (I have done so for effect; I once assigned some students to write a C program but wanted to provide a reference implementation with source so I gave them one in C++ that wouldn’t translate directly at all.)

[dana321]

Internally, i mean, thats how it was originally built and it generates code much in the way that C would, if you would have manually coded it. Maybe not jump on my head without thinking first!

[saagarjha]

Not trying to jump on your head; I apologize if you got that impression. But while C++ was originally C preprocessor/transpiler, modern C++ has diverged quite a bit from from this. I mean, take a look at this and tell me how it would be possible to convert it to C in a straightforwards way: https://github.com/regular-vm/libencoding/blob/master/encodi...

[dana321]

Internally, that's what C++ is doing..Converting the abstractions into code. There is a lot of complexity hidden from view (you might see some of it when you get some esoteric template bug in your ide)

Btw, that code is using std::unordered_map which is notoriously slow compared to an ordinary std::map for a small amount of elements. And the unordered map of register names each with a pair, why? Why not use std::vector for fast lookup?

The crux of what i'm saying isn't anything new, Bjarne Stroustrup admits that C++ is mainly a high-level abstraction language. There is some new things, but really, the things that are new like << etc. are operator overloads which are just more abstractions.

[dfox]

For me the main issue with C++ is the idea of no overhead for features you don't use which is not bad idea, but is complete nonsense when the measure of “overhead” used by the language authors is some combination of how the hypothetical C code generated by hypothetical cfront behaves and how the resulting code would run on early 80's minicomputer...