On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 22:51:19 +0200 "Stuart" <stu...@gmx.com> wrote:
> On Monday, 23 July 2012 at 15:56:37 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: > > Am 23.07.2012 14:49, schrieb Stuart: > >> On Saturday, 21 July 2012 at 22:16:52 UTC, Nick Sabalausky > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> C++ is living in the 70's. > >> > >> Precisely what I have been thinking. It's a loose wrapper > >> around > >> assembly, nothing more. Certainly not the "high-level language" > >> it's touted as. > > > > Only due to the lack of modules. > > > > Everything else is a pretty modern language I would say. > > Hardly. No RTTI. No GC. No properties. No events. No closures. No > extension methods. No interfaces. No writable references. > Null-terminated strings. Preprocessor. No reflection. Effectively undefined sizes for primitive types. Undefined behavior galore. Neither default initialization nor enforced initialization before variable usage. No reference types (Foo& isn't what I mean). Horrendous type syntax for mixed arrays/ptrs or functions ptrs, etc. No forward references (or at least very limited). And a grammar that forces compilation to be very, very slow. And a lot more still that's lacking if you don't count C++11 which isn't widely supported yet (ex: foreach, basic type inference). And the fact that static analysis tools are as super useful as they are is plenty proof alone that the language itself is WAAAY behind the curve.