But you won't when writing C++ unless you absolutely have to, because it's a major pita to encapsulate everything.
Entire books [0] have been written about exception safety in C++. Getting it right in combination with RAII, (copy)-constructors and assignment operators is very tricky. Which touches the main issue with C++ from my experience, mixing foot guns with higher level convenience.
Embedded linked lists [1] is a good example.
Seriously, live and let live. I'm fine with you enjoying and preferring C++, go for it. But consider taking a good look in the mirror and asking yourself why you feel the need to spread FUD about C to feel good about your choice.
I can honestly say that C++ exceptions have never, in decades, cost me a single hour's lost sleep. If you have any trouble with them, I promise that you are Doing It Wrong. You can tell you are Doing It Wrong if it is not super-easy and super-clean.
The key is to make sure all your cleanup code is in destructors where it will be exercised frequently as part of the normal operation of your program. In the event an exception is thrown, a bunch of destructors run, as usual, and your program ends up in a known clean state, with no extra effort.
But you won't when writing C++ unless you absolutely have to, because it's a major pita to encapsulate everything.
Entire books [0] have been written about exception safety in C++. Getting it right in combination with RAII, (copy)-constructors and assignment operators is very tricky. Which touches the main issue with C++ from my experience, mixing foot guns with higher level convenience.
Embedded linked lists [1] is a good example.
Seriously, live and let live. I'm fine with you enjoying and preferring C++, go for it. But consider taking a good look in the mirror and asking yourself why you feel the need to spread FUD about C to feel good about your choice.
[0] http://www.gotw.ca/publications/xc++.htm [1] https://github.com/codr7/libceque/blob/master/source/libcequ...