You are going to laugh me right off the site but yes C++ is way too complex.

I thought I would explore the world of C++ programming. I managed to find the NeHE site where they have tutorials written in VC++ then translated into every know flavor.
Since I want my project to be cross platform I decided to take the first tutorial and compare VC++, Linux, and Mac. losw and behold there are like 3 different Linux translations that appear throughout the 48 tutorials, another discussion. So I copied the code into a spreadsheet and low and be hold not a single line of the 3 sources line up. I do not want to consider how the differrence between Intel and ATT syntax will further my confusion.
Now granted I come from a construction and accounting background, but I got to tell you every wall in the in the world since the invention of sheet rock is built with wall studs 16" on center. Every one states that C++ is a tool box well your tool box is cluttered.
On the otherhand I axcept that what you as programmers do is art and for that I am amazed. Andas such, as artists you all have your own style. Monet's little dabs and Picasso's odd balance. But, they all used the same brushes, the same base colors.
So I am more confused as ever after this mornings work. How can Qt and Code::Blocks, whom I thought would be the best tools for my project, can they claim to...code once, code less, deploy everywhere...with such differences in coding rules and styles? So I am starting to believe my 2 programer friends when they said I am in over my head. And, after posting on 5 forums and being "viewed" by over 200 people to have only one respond has given me the insight that I am not welcomed in this particular sandbox.
But I will figure this out and my 3 year old will get his learning game.

[quote name='Karsten_' timestamp='1354273814' post='5005651']
The parts of C++ that should generally be avoided (unless necessary) is misusing C stuff rather than the C++ alternative.
For example fopen, malloc and goto could be replaced with ifstream, new (with smart pointer) and exception respectively.

Whilst the ability to use classic C stuff seems to make the language complex, I actually prefer the way C++ extends rather than reinventing the whole language again from scratch (such as C#).

Kindof like OpenGL is seemingly quite hard to learn for new developers because it still has all the old stuff rather than dropping it all and starting with a brand new graphics API.

how would you replace the goto in this bit with an exception

for (int bar =0; bar < 100; ++bar)
{
for(int foo = 0; foo < 100; ++foo)
{
if (foo * bar == 100)
{
goto loopBreak;
}
}
}

loopBreak:
printf("%d", 100);


The code I am presenting is not doing something usefull at all to be honest but imagine a difficult calculation going on over a grid in which if a certain condition is met you need to break out of both loops and continue the rest of the algorithm with the results already calucalted?
[/quote]


for (int bar =0; bar < 100; ++bar)
{
for(int foo = 0; foo < 100; ++foo)
{
if (foo * bar == 100)
{
foo = 100;
bar = 100;
continue;
}
}
}
printf("%d", 100);



for (int bar =0; bar < 100; ++bar)
{
for(int foo = 0; foo < 100; ++foo)
{
if (foo * bar == 100)
{
foo = 100;
bar = 100;
continue;
}
}
}
printf("%d", 100);


So instead of a goto whose purpose is immediately obvious (you even get a label in whose name you can document what's going on), now we have code which expresses intent worse and requires changing the ranges in two places if they ever change. What if we now want to do something when the loops end without the condition ever being found? With the goto, you just put that code before the label; with the new code, there is really no obvious way of doing it. What if we are interested in knowing the values of foo and bar whose product is 100 beyond the loop? Again the old code was easier to adapt.

The only "advantage" of the second code is that it doesn't use goto, which as far as I am concerned is a ridiculous metric.