Timeline for Should we avoid language features that C++ has but Java doesn't?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 16, 2020 at 10:01 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| May 23, 2017 at 12:40 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| May 17, 2017 at 14:14 | comment | added | Kyle Strand | @BenVoigt I would still be interested in a list of inaccuracies in the FQA, since neither of the questions on Stack Exchange that I found is visible to me. | |
| Oct 2, 2016 at 21:11 | comment | added | Kyle Strand | I have no idea if your theory is correct, though in my case I definitely learned C++ and C separately, and my C++ class was really quite thorough. But the full quote about the 20/80 split is that every programmer knows a different 20% of the language, which wouldn't be explained by most programmers being taught the C part of the language independently. Anyway, if you'd like to explain in detail how C++ permits more robust programming (I claim I've seen before but do not understand), we'd probably best do it in a chat room or something rather than in the comments here. | |
| Oct 2, 2016 at 20:42 | comment | added | Galik |
IMO the 20/80 split is exasperated because many/most? courses teaching C++ are actually teaching C techniques using a C++ compiler and so many/most? programmers are learning the wrong 20% of the language. I think it is possible to write more robust programs in C++ that Java but getting trained to that point is much harder. C has been the greatest friend to C++ but is also its greatest enemy.
|
|
| Oct 2, 2016 at 20:15 | comment | added | Kyle Strand | @BenVoigt Note that I don't have sufficient rep on this site to view closed quesitons, including the one I linked.... | |
| Sep 12, 2016 at 23:01 | history | edited | Kyle Strand | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added new and exciting C++ pitfall links
|
| Feb 1, 2016 at 16:59 | history | edited | Kyle Strand | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 610 characters in body
|
| Jan 30, 2016 at 21:18 | comment | added | Kyle Strand | VM/managed languages are obviously much more complicated under the surface, but I mean complicated from a use perspective. | |
| Jan 30, 2016 at 21:16 | comment | added | Kyle Strand | @DavidHammen I think the 80/20 split refers to core language features, not just standard library components, in which case the languages you mention, with the possible exception of Perl, really don't seem to be as big and complicated as C++. In any case, that was a very small part of my answer, and I acknowledged that it's a biased source. | |
| Jan 30, 2016 at 19:52 | comment | added | David Hammen |
Many (almost all?) of the complaints in the C++ FQA are nonsense. Modern languages are huge. C++ is rather small in comparison to Python, Ruby, Perl, and yes, Java. Ask a basic question in those languages on stackoverflow and the first answer is almost inevitably along the lines of "Why didn't you import SomeVeryBasicPackage and just do this?" Ask an advanced question and the first answer is almost inevitably along the lines of "Why didn't you import SomeMagicalPackage and just do that?"
|
|
| Jan 28, 2016 at 23:21 | history | edited | Kyle Strand | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 5 characters in body
|
| Jan 27, 2016 at 23:39 | comment | added | Kyle Strand | @BenVoigt I found a deleted one on SO, and a closed one here. | |
| Jan 27, 2016 at 22:48 | comment | added | Ben Voigt | I think there's already a question or two around here covering the FQA and correctness thereof. I can help look in a couple hours. | |
| Jan 27, 2016 at 21:36 | comment | added | Kyle Strand | Also, it would be interesting to see some examples of those. (In any case, I did acknowledge that he's a biased source.) | |
| Jan 27, 2016 at 21:28 | comment | added | Kyle Strand | @BenVoigt Even if that's the case, doesn't that essentially prove his point? | |
| Jan 27, 2016 at 20:44 | comment | added | Ben Voigt | The FQA author definitely falls into the "understand at most 20% of the language" group. Quite a few answers there that are factually wrong, and a whole bunch more that just miss the point, illustrated with strawman after strawman. | |
| Jan 27, 2016 at 18:42 | history | answered | Kyle Strand | CC BY-SA 3.0 |