C++ takes a lot of heat because it doesn't conform to today's fad ideas of mainline programming (this is IMHO, of course ) namely: Strict adherence to OOP principles, and type safety. C++ wasn't designed to be an OO language, but rather to give you the ability to write OO code if you chose to.

Um, yes it it was. C was designed EXACTLY to be an OO language. C++ actually started out being called C with Classes ( aka, objects ). The very first extensions to C++ were to support Object oriented programming on top of C. ( Originally C++ compiled down to C code ). [font="sans-serif"]Bjarne Stroustrup was heavily inspired by and accredits Simula as one of the major inspirations for C++. Now, one of the design tenants of C++, at least as it evolved, was to but a multi paradigm language, but then, the same can be said of C# ( which supports functional, procedural, object oriented and various other programming methodologies ) and a lesser degree to Java and various other languages. Few languages actually force you into a specific coding style, beyond the likes of smalltalk, LISP and other specialty languages.[/font]
[font="sans-serif"] [/font]
[font="sans-serif"]

[/font]
It was not really written to be type safe because strictly enforcing type safety can limit programmers, to a certain degree.
[/quote]


Like what? What *good* programming practice does C++ lack of type safety enable it to perform, that a language such as C# cannot? [ There are a few answers, I'm curious to hear yours ]

It is a language of choice, designed to support multiple paradigms.
[/quote]

As explained earlier, this is by no means exclusively the domain of C++. Actually, in some areas, C++ is actually a very poor fit for some programming paradigms.

Honestly, I think pure OO and type safety are both overrated... just like you should use the right tool for the job, you should use the right paradigm for the job -- and sometimes that is somewhat subjective.
[/quote]

Really? Lets completely ignore the merits of object oriented programming for a second, which is a thread unto itself, but frankly you think type safety is overrated? Really?

As for C++ being dangerous: Sure it is... it makes no effort to hold your hand. If you or I, as programmers, mess up then it won't work properly... because we messed up. The idea is to learn the tools available, apply good design skills (and I tend to think at least some degree of creative intuition), and be careful. If something is broken, take responsibility and fix it. Java/C# have somewhat different approach... They are "safer" to work in as often times you won't go quite as humorously or terrifyingly wrong, and yet they somewhat restrict you from trying the crazy idea which later turns out to be brilliant, etc etc etc. Of course, many will disagree, that is fine. When it comes to it, C++ is just as valid a language as Java/C#/whatever depending on use, and on programmer comfort and preference.
[/quote]

If I can be completely honest for a moment, I highly recommend you take some time to familiarize yourself with some other languages. Some of your perceptions of different languages are just patently wrong, as are your understanding of the history and to a lesser degree, the merits of C++.

Had you mentioned portability as a strength, that I could understand. Had you mentioned 3rd party library support as a strength, that I could understand. Or the large repositories of code and the backward compatibility with C, that I could have understood. Had you mentioned performance as a strength, that I would have slightly disputed, but still it would be understandable. Yet almost every thing you did mention, to be completely honest, are the kind of things that one hears from another and puppets as truth.

Please don't take this as an insult or as an attack on C++, my intentions are good. It just seem so many people are working on bad supposition, and in the end that doesn't help anyone, especially when those suppositions are passed on generation after generation.

[quote name='medevilenemy' timestamp='1307330294' post='4819962']
C++ takes a lot of heat because it doesn't conform to today's fad ideas of mainline programming (this is IMHO, of course ) namely: Strict adherence to OOP principles, and type safety. C++ wasn't designed to be an OO language, but rather to give you the ability to write OO code if you chose to. It was not really written to be type safe because strictly enforcing type safety can limit programmers, to a certain degree. It is a language of choice, designed to support multiple paradigms. Honestly, I think pure OO and type safety are both overrated... just like you should use the right tool for the job, you should use the right paradigm for the job -- and sometimes that is somewhat subjective. As for C++ being dangerous: Sure it is... it makes no effort to hold your hand. If you or I, as programmers, mess up then it won't work properly... because we messed up. The idea is to learn the tools available, apply good design skills (and I tend to think at least some degree of creative intuition), and be careful. If something is broken, take responsibility and fix it. Java/C# have somewhat different approach... They are "safer" to work in as often times you won't go quite as humorously or terrifyingly wrong, and yet they somewhat restrict you from trying the crazy idea which later turns out to be brilliant, etc etc etc. Of course, many will disagree, that is fine. When it comes to it, C++ is just as valid a language as Java/C#/whatever depending on use, and on programmer comfort and preference.

good points there.
heres another one:
it does not force you to do things in a specifiec mannor, i can do thread however i want, or i can read files however i want.
but the down side is that there are a lot of ways to shoot yourself in the foot, but when you have learnt that shooting yourself in the foot is not the way forward you do it in a better way
[/quote]

To be honest, I give you the exact same advice I gave medevilenemy, you should probably familiarize yourself with other languages a bit more, as your examples make very little sense. To use your file reading example, as for example in C#, I can't think of a single way you couldn't read a file like you could in C++. I mean, if you want to read a file byte by byte, you can, if you want to read a file to a memory buffer, you can, hell if you want to pInvoke back to the Win32 apis for whatever bizarro reason you can think of... you can.

Really, and with complete sincerity, I recommend you try a couple other languages, instead of going by their "reputations". I believe it will be an eye opening experience for you. I am not saying you will quit being a C++ programmer after, but I almost guarantee you will be a better programmer after, regardless to which language you chose to go with.

[quote name='medevilenemy' timestamp='1307330294' post='4819962']
C++ takes a lot of heat because it doesn't conform to today's fad ideas of mainline programming (this is IMHO, of course ) namely: Strict adherence to OOP principles, and type safety. C++ wasn't designed to be an OO language, but rather to give you the ability to write OO code if you chose to.

Um, yes it it was. C was designed EXACTLY to be an OO language. C++ actually started out being called C with Classes ( aka, objects ). The very first extensions to C++ were to support Object oriented programming on top of C. ( Originally C++ compiled down to C code ). [font="sans-serif"]Bjarne Stroustrup was heavily inspired by and accredits Simula as one of the major inspirations for C++. Now, one of the design tenants of C++, at least as it evolved, was to but a multi paradigm language, but then, the same can be said of C# ( which supports functional, procedural, object oriented and various other programming methodologies ) and a lesser degree to Java and various other languages. Few languages actually force you into a specific coding style, beyond the likes of smalltalk, LISP and other specialty languages.[/font]

[font="sans-serif"]

[/font]
It was not really written to be type safe because strictly enforcing type safety can limit programmers, to a certain degree.
[/quote]

None of our languages of preference are perfect, nor are we (certainly not me), but there is plenty to be learned from both the strengths and weaknesses of various languages. I mean simply to have us consider various languages and paradigms as equals as, honestly, language doesn't matter nearly so much as design skills and thinking both inside and outside the box.

Like what? What *good* programming practice does C++ lack of type safety enable it to perform, that a language such as C# cannot? [ There are a few answers, I'm curious to hear yours ]

It is a language of choice, designed to support multiple paradigms.
[/quote]

As explained earlier, this is by no means exclusively the domain of C++. Actually, in some areas, C++ is actually a very poor fit for some programming paradigms.

Honestly, I think pure OO and type safety are both overrated... just like you should use the right tool for the job, you should use the right paradigm for the job -- and sometimes that is somewhat subjective.
[/quote]

Really? Lets completely ignore the merits of object oriented programming for a second, which is a thread unto itself, but frankly you think type safety is overrated? Really?

As for C++ being dangerous: Sure it is... it makes no effort to hold your hand. If you or I, as programmers, mess up then it won't work properly... because we messed up. The idea is to learn the tools available, apply good design skills (and I tend to think at least some degree of creative intuition), and be careful. If something is broken, take responsibility and fix it. Java/C# have somewhat different approach... They are "safer" to work in as often times you won't go quite as humorously or terrifyingly wrong, and yet they somewhat restrict you from trying the crazy idea which later turns out to be brilliant, etc etc etc. Of course, many will disagree, that is fine. When it comes to it, C++ is just as valid a language as Java/C#/whatever depending on use, and on programmer comfort and preference.
[/quote]

If I can be completely honest for a moment, I highly recommend you take some time to familiarize yourself with some other languages. Some of your perceptions of different languages are just patently wrong, as are your understanding of the history and to a lesser degree, the merits of C++.

Had you mentioned portability as a strength, that I could understand. Had you mentioned 3rd party library support as a strength, that I could understand. Or the large repositories of code and the backward compatibility with C, that I could have understood. Had you mentioned performance as a strength, that I would have slightly disputed, but still it would be understandable. Yet almost every thing you did mention, to be completely honest, are the kind of things that one hears from another and puppets as truth.

Please don't take this as an insult or as an attack on C++, my intentions are good. It just seem so many people are working on bad supposition, and in the end that doesn't help anyone, especially when those suppositions are passed on generation after generation.
[/quote]


No need to be quite so rude, Serapth, we are all simply discussing opinions in good faith. I will not respond point for point except perhaps for a couple and to try to clarify my general meaning: I was not trying to say that OO and type safety are bad, or that C++ is the greatest thing ever, but rather that I don't think they are the greatest things ever. Focusing too much on any given paradigm or practice is limiting in that you box yourself up and won't necessarily think of alternate methods of doing things. For example, a messaging system. There are lots of ways to go about it, the general idea simply being to pass data/arguments in a type agnostic format as well as the context to decode the message on the far end (because different messages can, conceivably, need different types of arguments). You can do this lots of ways, from generics, to polymorphic wrappers, to string packing or even void pointers. There are pros and cons to each, with the void pointer method probably being the most sketchy from the perspective of type safety... but really, so long as you are careful and provide yourself appropriate context, even the void pointer method can be worked with relative ease.

On C++ design intentions, allow me to quote something (from the C++ man himself by way of wikipedia):

In The Design and Evolution of C++ (1994), Bjarne Stroustrup describes some rules that he used for the design of C++:[sup][page needed][/sup]

• C++ is designed to be a statically typed, general-purpose language that is as efficient and portable as C
• C++ is designed to directly and comprehensively support multiple programming styles (procedural programming, data abstraction, object-oriented programming, and generic programming)
• C++ is designed to give the programmer choice, even if this makes it possible for the programmer to choose incorrectly
• C++ is designed to be as compatible with C as possible, therefore providing a smooth transition from C
• C++ avoids features that are platform specific or not general purpose
• C++ does not incur overhead for features that are not used (the "zero-overhead principle")
• C++ is designed to function without a sophisticated programming environment [/quote]

The second point there is what I was attempting to express.... not that C++ wasn't intended to be useful for OOP, but rather that C++ wasn't intended to be solely OO... OO is simply a tool, albeit an important tool, in the C++ feature set. It is not the end-all be-all for programming nor is it the only valid way to approach all problems.

Point three above is really the perfect overall statement -- As stated above... there are indeed plenty of ways to shoot yourself in the foot... the responsibility is the programmers to try not to do so, and to take responsibility if they accidently do.

No need to be quite so rude, Serapth, we are all simply discussing opinions in good faith. I will not respond point for point except perhaps for a couple and to try to clarify my general meaning:

By no means was my intention to be rude, if it came across that way, I apologize. That said, my point had absolutely nothing to do with opinion, with the exception of my suggestions of course, I was simply addressing factual errors. I don't do this to be a dick, I do this to hopefully help you and more importantly, help others that might be reading your words. There are certain rather harmful stereotypes that are propagated about various programming languages and frankly this mis-information is harmful to new developers. All languages have their strengths and weaknesses, but they weren't properly represented in the earlier conversations.

EDIT, to address your direct points in your response:

[color="#1C2837"]Focusing too much on any given paradigm or practice is limiting in that you box yourself up and won't necessarily think of alternate methods of doing things. For example, a messaging system. There are lots of ways to go about it, the general idea simply being to pass data/arguments in a type agnostic format as well as the context to decode the message on the far end (because different messages can, conceivably, need different types of arguments). You can do this lots of ways, from generics, to polymorphic wrappers, to string packing or even void pointers. There are pros and cons to each, with the void pointer method probably being the most sketchy from the perspective of type safety... but really, so long as you are careful and provide yourself appropriate context, even the void pointer method can be worked with relative ease.[/quote]

[color="#1c2837"]I don't exactly understand what you are trying to say or more accurately, what point of mine you are trying to dispute. You are correct, you can address a message system using a variety of paradigms, sure... but this has absolutely nothing to do with C++. This is a big part of the reason I suggest you expose yourself to other languages, your wording seems to imply you think such actions are exclusive to the domain of C++, but not a thing you said heard wasn't equally applicable to C# or Java or various other general purpose languages. The flexibility your are attributing to C++ are by no means exclusive to C++! Actually with events and delegates, there are far superior ways to implement such a message system in other languages that wouldn't even come close to being as kludgey and error prone as a void pointer. Until you try other langauges of course, you aren't going to recognize the alternatives, nor the relative strengths and weaknesses of your chosen language.
[color="#1c2837"]
[color="#1c2837"]
[color="#1c2837"]

[color="#1C2837"]The second point there is what I was attempting to express.... not that C++ wasn't intended to be useful for OOP, but rather that C++ wasn't intended to be solely OO... OO is simply a tool, albeit an important tool, in the C++ feature set. It is not the end-all be-all for programming nor is it the only valid way to approach all problems.[/quote]
[color="#1C2837"]
[color="#1C2837"]Ok... ditto for Java and ditto for C# and ditto for Python, Pascal, D, Ruby, Javascript and various other general purpose languages. Not really sure again what point you are trying to dispute, in fact, you seem to be agreeing with me from what I can tell.

For the benefit of people who aren't experienced in other languages, can you explain what you mean?

For example, from what I've seen of Java, I don't really see how it's designed for a non OOPS paradigm. The only thing I can think of is that Java has a primitive form of closures due to inner classes.

[quote name='ryan20fun' timestamp='1307387852' post='4820217']
[quote name='medevilenemy' timestamp='1307330294' post='4819962']
C++ takes a lot of heat because it doesn't conform to today's fad ideas of mainline programming (this is IMHO, of course ) namely: Strict adherence to OOP principles, and type safety. C++ wasn't designed to be an OO language, but rather to give you the ability to write OO code if you chose to. It was not really written to be type safe because strictly enforcing type safety can limit programmers, to a certain degree. It is a language of choice, designed to support multiple paradigms. Honestly, I think pure OO and type safety are both overrated... just like you should use the right tool for the job, you should use the right paradigm for the job -- and sometimes that is somewhat subjective. As for C++ being dangerous: Sure it is... it makes no effort to hold your hand. If you or I, as programmers, mess up then it won't work properly... because we messed up. The idea is to learn the tools available, apply good design skills (and I tend to think at least some degree of creative intuition), and be careful. If something is broken, take responsibility and fix it. Java/C# have somewhat different approach... They are "safer" to work in as often times you won't go quite as humorously or terrifyingly wrong, and yet they somewhat restrict you from trying the crazy idea which later turns out to be brilliant, etc etc etc. Of course, many will disagree, that is fine. When it comes to it, C++ is just as valid a language as Java/C#/whatever depending on use, and on programmer comfort and preference.

good points there.
heres another one:
it does not force you to do things in a specifiec mannor, i can do thread however i want, or i can read files however i want.
but the down side is that there are a lot of ways to shoot yourself in the foot, but when you have learnt that shooting yourself in the foot is not the way forward you do it in a better way
[/quote]

To be honest, I give you the exact same advice I gave medevilenemy, you should probably familiarize yourself with other languages a bit more, as your examples make very little sense. To use your file reading example, as for example in C#, I can't think of a single way you couldn't read a file like you could in C++. I mean, if you want to read a file byte by byte, you can, if you want to read a file to a memory buffer, you can, hell if you want to pInvoke back to the Win32 apis for whatever bizarro reason you can think of... you can.

Really, and with complete sincerity, I recommend you try a couple other languages, instead of going by their "reputations". I believe it will be an eye opening experience for you. I am not saying you will quit being a C++ programmer after, but I almost guarantee you will be a better programmer after, regardless to which language you chose to go with.
[/quote]

yes it proberbly was not the best example, but my point is that you can do it any way you want, in C# i found that certain stuff had to be done a certain way, wheres C++ does not really have a certain way of doing stuff.

yes it proberbly was not the best example, but my point is that you can do it any way you want, in C# i found that certain stuff had to be done a certain way, wheres C++ does not really have a certain way of doing stuff.
[/quote]
Parse error at line 1. Still, inferring as best I can I think you are mistaken. A more accurate analysis is that modern languages give you really good support to lots of things, and the support encourages you to do things a certain way. C++ tends to give you little or no support, so people have gone and done things in many ways.

It is erroneous to go from there to the idea that C++ gives you more options - it does not. As a language, it gives you less options. The fact that library developers have improved the situation is irrelevant - the same could be done on managed languages like C#.

For example, C++ does not have any concept of threads*. As a result many libraries were created to rectify this. Modern managed languages such as C# have built-in threads, and give you tools designed to use them a certain way. They aren't always exhaustive (though they are certainly comprehensive). However, there is nothing stopping you from writing libraries for C# that do other things with threads. The fact that few exist owes mainly to how much you can do with the built-in support.

Replace "threads" with almost any other concept and the above statement is still usually true.

A notable exception might be 3D graphics. There were a number of abortive "official" attempts to add support for 3D graphics to managed languages like Java and C#. Most have failed (except for XNA - which isn't strictly 3D graphics so I'll ignore it). In the absence of built-in support, the communities involved have created libraries.

* [size="1"]Ignoring C++0x for the moment