[adev_]

> I didn't spent a lot of hours in C++ world, but it never felt simple

C++ is not simple.

But presenting C# (or Java) as "simple" is equally hypocritical. The JVM or the CLR and their associated frameworks are monster of complexity, engineering and legacy that require close to an entire lifetime to be mastered entirely.

C# (or Java) are "accessible", meaning a newbie devlopper can produce something halfway baked in these languages relatively quickly.

And this is something you can not say about C++.

But they are not in any way "simple".

[tester34]

I don't think you're talking about same thing

Just because JVM or CLR are complex, then it *doesn't* mean that writting good C# / Java requires you to be proficient at CLR/JVM lvl and because of that it is hard.

>meaning a newbie devlopper can produce something halfway baked in these languages relatively quickly.

Newbie developer can produce mediocre solutions in all of those - C#, Java, C++.

The difference is that in C#/Java world it may be slow and in C++/C world it may be exploitable (more likely) <snark>.

Anyway, in my world very often it's not about internals, but about modeling skills, about OOP, testability. Those are some of the ways of measuring how good the code is.

Good system modeling skills are way above technology

[kaba0]

How exactly are they not simple? Well, not C# because it has a problem with a bit of a feature creep similar to C++, but Java is a really tiny language compared to.. anything.

And you don’t have to be a master of the JVM because chances are you are not a gcc/clang maintainer and yet you can write performant-enough correct code.