But C is non of them. Pointers are more complex in C than in C++ (pointer provenance). Casts are more complicated in C than in C++, as C++ named casts are less powerful and therefore give you less opportunity to shoot yourself in the foot. Strings (I'd guess quite important part of web programming) are a minefield in C, and they are so much better in C++. Resource management, memory ownership, object lifetimes. All very hairy in C++, all a good reason to not use C++. but also reasons to not use C. Types are a mess in C++. C is even weaker typed, making it worse.
If you like procedural programming and dislike the complexities of C++, i suggest you write C++ without member functions, without inheritance and compiler disabled exceptions. It will feel similar, but it will be better. I suggest using a c++ compiler to write C with enum classes, std::span, either a typed std::span wrapper for malloc or std::vector<std::char8_t>, std::string, std::string_view,using, std::variant, std::unique_ptr, std::fmt, std::optional, templates, std::vector for your types, in that order. And don't use C style var-args and C style enums, C style unions. You can have very C-Like code, that is way less complex than C.
To this day I cannot understand how anybody can claim that. C++ is so ridiculously complex that it’s not a superset of C mostly because of added keywords and rules, some of them implicit.
> I suggest using a c++ compiler to write C with enum classes, std::span, either a typed std::span wrapper for malloc or std::vector<std::char8_t>, std::string, std::string_view,using, std::variant, std::unique_ptr, std::fmt, std::optional, templates, std::vector for your types, in that order.
How on earth do you write that and expect me to believe it’s simpler than C? You’ve just listed a number of options on how to implement an *enum* of all things. Each one will have different pros and cons, and I’m supposed to weight them before coding?
> Pointers are more complex in C than in C++
That’s impossible from you own statement. Pointers in C can be more dangerous because the compiler won’t stop you from doing crazy shit, I’d buy that, but complex?
C++ feels like the Mikrotik version of C, there’s just too many options and buttons and switches, and I won’t use half of this in my life! I guess some people find it interesting but I’m just trying to get my job done.
I'm open to both views, and most importantly to trade-off one against the other according to other constraints and context. For me, using C++ allows me to do that, because it's (mostly) a superset of C. Acknowledging, of course, that this brings a trade-off of its own, because decisions must continually made (and enforced) about what std/external libraries to use and when.
Yes, and I agree that that's a problem. But to a much lager degree it removes implicity from C. If you don't write member functions and ust inheritance (and I'm serious about this) I don't see any added implicity.
>How on earth do you write that and expect me to believe it’s simpler than C? Y
Because It is. Let me walk you thu:
- enum classes: work just like enums, minus the implicit conversions.
- std::span: incredibly simple: A struct with a pointer and a size. All wrapped up in a struct to signify indent: You don't own this. This is very simple and removes implicit assumptions from c apis. Putting data that belongs together in one struct is not alien to C. AFAIK it's considered good design.
- either a typed std::span wrapper for malloc: This is just a malloc that replaces void * for a proper type. Again, adding simplicity and removing implitity. And a facility to bounds check in way that is harder to mix up. Again, placing data that belongs together in a struct. However, if you do this, you give up the conventions that spans are not owing. That's because you might consider a std::vector<T> (same but also can to realloc), or just write a owing_span template that does the same. The name is just very convenient documentation. By the way, the suggest classes so far can reasonably written by yourself in a few lines of code.
-std::string : This one is the first to be non trivial to implement by your self, but dont be picky, just use the one from the standard. It very easy to use. And C Strings just suck.
-std::string_view: This is a struct{const char*; size_t;}, plus a few member functions, without any magic. While I suggest you don't write you own member functions, using this is just fine. And significantly harder to make mistakes with than with C.
-std::variant: This is just a union. But with most footguns removed. If you don't use unions in C, dont juse this.
-std::unique_ptr: This is this first bit of code that is somewhat magic, as it cleans up after itself. Just always correctly placed free()s. It also signifies ownership. I see how this is somewhat controversial, but for me this a massive simplification. But see, this list was ordered, and this was towards the end.
- std::fmt: Enjoy how C-Style var args don't have any type safety? Love the good old printf-exploits? Then this is not for you. Otherwise it's pythons easy and loved string interpolation.
-std::optional, templates, std::vector: This is definitifly getting more c++ is, but not complicated. Std::optional is a struct with a bool and one additional member, templates are way to do generic programming in a way easier way than preprocessor macros. But yes, may to much C++ fore some peoples liking. That's why these are last.
>That’s impossible from you own statement.
C does some pretty IMHO insane stuff called pointer provenance. AFAIK C++ doesn't. Also named casts. Harder to remove const by accident.
>You’ve just listed a number of options on how to implement an enum of all things.
Uhm.. What?
>but I’m just trying to get my job done.
If there is one pragmatic language out there, It's c++ (or maybe perl). In fact I'd say that why is so complex compared to more academic languages like scheme, haskell, prolog and pascal.
Now if you do something like C++ with Qt, that's a very different proposition - but that applies both to batteries being included, and to the overall coding style.
