The hidden cost of C++

[KittenKoder]

In C++, this is not valid:

1	vector<vector<vector<double>>> myVec;

This is valid  :

1	vector<vector<vector<double> > > myVec;

I think that doesn't make sense at all. 

The ambiguity of the >> and >>> is a fault of the overriding of operators, this is both a strength and a weakness. Java avoids this by not allowing operator overriding, one of the many aspects of Java I like. Overriding operators does make more compact source code, but in reality it doesn't make things more readable and just offers certain flaws such as the above nuance.

[Roquen]

Operator overloading isn't the problem.  An ambiguous syntax is. 

[sproingie]

That's actually one of the reasons I do and don't like c/c++, pointers are "open access." You can type cast anything to anything, but you have to remember what you've cast something as or you'll access part of something else ... maybe even part of another program.

C++ is actually fairly strict about that sort of thing with normal casts (C-style or static_cast<>), much more so than C is.  Now there is reinterpret_cast<> which really is an anything-to-anything cast, but it's got a clunky distinctive name like that for a reason.

What does kill me about C is stuff like slicing, which you can only seem to avoid by using pointers.  That and implicit copy constructors -- at least Scala's implicit conversions require an 'implicit' keyword, C++ forces you to opt out with 'explicit'.

Games published by our own members! Check 'em out!

[sproingie]

In C++, this is not valid:

1	vector<vector<vector<double>>> myVec;

This is valid  :

1	vector<vector<vector<double> > > myVec;

I think that doesn't make sense at all. 

It doesn't have to, because it's not the case anymore.  GCC fixed it a long time ago, and it's part of the C++ standard.  It's also got jack shit to do with operator overloading, it's ambiguity at the lex/parse level.  Incidentally, the ambiguity is with >>, C++ does not have a >>> operator. 

[Oskuro]

In C++, this is not valid:

1	vector<vector<vector<double>>> myVec;

This is valid  :

1	vector<vector<vector<double> > > myVec;

I think that doesn't make sense at all. 

Now, it is certainly inconvenient when a parser/compiler does this kind of thing, but it isn't hard to understand why.

If you have trouble understanding the reason why these inconveniences happen, then maybe you are the problem?

Not trying to be smug or anything. In my experience with different languages, a big part of the development process is finding ways to work around limitations (usually cursing all the way through).

[princec]

Recognising ones own limitations as well as others is a very positive attitude to have in life, though. I recognised years ago that C++ was basically too difficult for me to get anything done in, in any reasonable length of time. So I picked something much simpler to work with.

Cas

[Oskuro]

Indeed.

I personally have an irrational love for C++, but still prefer to start development in Java until I have a good idea of what I'm doing, before even attempting to get knee-deep in segmentation faults.

[Jimmt]

It's good to be lazy sometimes