|
|
|
|
|
|
by naasking
1634 days ago
|
|
|
> Contrary to some other languages it gives the developer maximal freedom and does not impose a particular way of doing things on the developer You seem to be implying that's a good thing. It's literally not. Imagine if I created a programming language where every random string of characters was a valid program (cue the Perl jokes). Clearly this language permits even more freedom than C++, but this would be a nightmare for programming. Constrained structure is essential to programming. Sometimes you need to beyond the constraints of a more common language, in which case C++ might be a good choice, but that's the exception not the rule. |
|
|
, that it must be true that utility decreases with the unconstrained-ness of a language (and thus increases with more constraint).
However, this is not true. You only have to look to the other extreme to see there must be a middle ground. A language where there is only one valid program has no more utility than one where any string is a valid program.
Because this relationship of constraint and utility is clearly not simple, we can't use those extrema to judge if C++ is less useful because it gives so much control. There might be some "local extrema" where a language fits a niche. C++ might fill that niche, or it might not, but I think it needs a bit more of a nuanced consideration than "less constraint, bad".