[rumanator]

> To the contrary, modern C++ has solved very few, if any, of the problems described in the article.

The author, after a long and dubious appeal to authority, claims that:

* C++ exceptions are outright evil and should be avoided

* C++ string class "is so utterly godawfully stupid" because it has no garbage collection or refcounting, and in short doesn't precisely match Python's implementation. He also felt personally insulted by the fact std::string is a template class.

* He feels C function pointers are fine but believes function pointers in C++ weren't extended to support pointers to member functions, which he then backtracks and says they actually exist but they are "so horrendously ill-conceived that absolutely nobody uses it for anything", thus showing his ignorance and lack of experience.

* For some reason he criticised std::map for the way it's std::map::operator[] returns a reference to the mapped value, eventhough that's what it is supposed to do by design and by the principle of least surprise.

* The author made other claims, but the text grows so much in the style of "foaming from the mouth" that it's just better to stop reading after a point.

In short, this article is just a rant where someone vents that a programming language other than Python is not Python at the eyes of the author. It's a pretty unconvincing rant and full of logical and rational holes, but a rant nonetheless. So the author loves Python and his personal take on C++ does not match his view of Python. That's fine. It's just weird how this sort of text floats up in a technical forum after over a decade after it has been published, as if it's expected to add or say anything of value.

[klingonopera]

> "Using the "+" operator with two string constants gives a weird compiler error about adding pointers?"

He'd have that in C too, and that's the expected behaviour. What he would want is:

  #define STRING1 "hello"
  #define STRING2 "world"
  const char* gString = STRING1 " " STRING2 "!\n";
  #include <stdio.h>
  int main() {printf(gString); return 0x0;}

[AstralStorm]

If you make them string constants rather than character arrays with the new literal ""s added in C++14, problem is gone. Author is using outdated C++.

This is all due to C compatibility.

[klingonopera]

Ah, yeah... no clue about C++'s strings, I just read his question and that sounded familiar to the problem, whose solution I posted above.

There's some overlap between C and C++, but maybe this wasn't such a case? Sorry, if it was uncalled for.

[Rusky]

You're not wrong, I wrote off the insubstantial stuff as rhetorical and started my comment with "being generous." :P

But on the other hand, even some of these less-helpful points have an element of truth:

* A lot of people/domains/codebases do wind up avoiding exceptions, for good reason. There is even an active proposal to provide an alternative kind of exceptions to solve their problems!

* Member function pointers are quite a mess, introducing a lot of complexity by not being compatible with regular function pointers. It wasn't until long after this article that those incompatibilities were papered over with the standard library.

* std::map::operator[]'s behavior arguably does not follow the principle of least surprise- it's a giant footgun.

The author goes out of his way to point out that the changes he wants don't require GC or an interpreter, despite all the comparisons to Python. It's not an insubstantial comparison in that light.

[ahaferburg]

Your version:

> The author [...] claims that C++ exceptions are outright evil and should be avoided

What the article actually says:

> This includes the RTTI and exceptions stuff; C++'s versions of those were enough to convince a whole generation of programmers that introspection and exceptions were outright evil and should be avoided

Your reading comprehension is lacking. You didn't understand what he is talking about. Why is Google not using exceptions?