[jesse__]

I don't like replying to this type of comment, but I'd like to point out that you're replying to someone who likely grew up writing 6502 assembly (or the like). Furthermore, even mediocre engine programmers have an extremely good grasp of memory management et. al.

I also don't think they're arguing cxx98 is a good language, especially by today's standards.

The argument they're making is that the tact C++ has taken in more modern revisions is actually _worse_ than writing code the shitty 1998 way. At least for axes games care about.

You mentioned move semantics, which is a great example. For a lot of game/engine code, move semantics are just adding a pile of complexity for negligible gain. Ie. Why not just use a pointer?

[wiseowise]

> The argument they're making is that the tact C++ has taken in more modern revisions is actually _worse_ than writing code the shitty 1998 way.

They didn’t have any argument. Just old man yelling at cloud.

> You mentioned move semantics, which is a great example. For a lot of game/engine code, move semantics are just adding a pile of complexity for negligible gain. Ie. Why not just use a pointer?

Because it is error prone.

[int_19h]

Once you're passing pointers around, you have to manually track lifetimes of things they point to.