Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

C++ is marketed by Stroustrup as a multi-paradigm programming language and this was its design goal from the beginning. Generic programming was a design goal, not a side effect. Regular programming capabilities are abundant with the CRT and OOP.

In short, all your statements are incorrect.




The fact that it happens to be perfect for generic programming is pure chance. It could have been botched like many of the other features. It had too many design goals, that is part of the point.

It is not abundant with regular programming capabilities: the main point of the arguments against C++ is that the regular capabilities are infested by problems from the more advanced features. Marketing something as multi-paradigm language implies that you can also use it for plain and simple things. Hell, you can even use Java for simple things. The post I responded to denied that. You are simply trying to prove my statements incorrect, without looking at the context in which they were made: the parent post and the specific sorts of criticism leveled against C++.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: