Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2025 09:57:57 +0100
You are right, he does cherry pick many things, but that because we are experts and we can spot them.But Is it the same for new comers?At the end of his video, he touched on the default, somehow he really makes a point...all C++ defaults are not correct.Even the moto of C++ (backwards compatibility, speed) is starting to deplete.From this position, i really salute compiler developers, YOU ARE THE MEN.I guess the best successor to C++, is C++ without these chuckles. Sent from my Galaxy
-------- Original message --------From: Jan Schultke <janschultke_at_[hidden]> Date: 11/22/25 6:57 AM (GMT+01:00) To: std-proposals_at_[hidden] Cc: organicoman <organicoman_at_[hidden]> Subject: Re: [std-proposals] The most fair rant on C++ I don't see anything that belongs on this mailing list here.There is at least as much nonsense and misinformation in the video as accurate information, and the video is overall not conducive to furthering C++ evolution.The producer claims you have to use "std::cout <<" prior to C++23, but you can also use std::puts and std::printf.The producer rants about the complexity of <random> vs. Python's randint function, using std::random_device as he claims isn't necessary, and Python's usage would be just as complex if it let you select your own distributions and PRNGs.The producer claims there are too many uses of static, without mentioning that one of these is obsoleted by unnamed namespaces.The producer cherry-picks negative naming choices like long (instead of i64) in C++, and cherry-picks good naming choices like Java's names for containers, but Java reuses the same naming scheme for its integers. You can cherry-pick good and bad names from any programming language all day long, and not much is accomplished by doing so.Maybe it gets better throughout the video, but it seems like the point here is to shit on C++ as hard as possible while ignoring important details, and without proposing any reasonable solution or being ignorant of an already existing solution.Some of the criticisms are fair, but of those, a lot are ancient problems or even inherited from C, and not much can be done about them.On Sat, 22 Nov 2025 at 00:09, organicoman via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:Hello,I saw this video, and i felt it would be interesting to hear other's opinions. https://youtu.be/7fGB-hjc2Gc?si=EqMPxxxvS40lL4YvRegardsOgSent from my Galaxy--
Std-Proposals mailing list
Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
-------- Original message --------From: Jan Schultke <janschultke_at_[hidden]> Date: 11/22/25 6:57 AM (GMT+01:00) To: std-proposals_at_[hidden] Cc: organicoman <organicoman_at_[hidden]> Subject: Re: [std-proposals] The most fair rant on C++ I don't see anything that belongs on this mailing list here.There is at least as much nonsense and misinformation in the video as accurate information, and the video is overall not conducive to furthering C++ evolution.The producer claims you have to use "std::cout <<" prior to C++23, but you can also use std::puts and std::printf.The producer rants about the complexity of <random> vs. Python's randint function, using std::random_device as he claims isn't necessary, and Python's usage would be just as complex if it let you select your own distributions and PRNGs.The producer claims there are too many uses of static, without mentioning that one of these is obsoleted by unnamed namespaces.The producer cherry-picks negative naming choices like long (instead of i64) in C++, and cherry-picks good naming choices like Java's names for containers, but Java reuses the same naming scheme for its integers. You can cherry-pick good and bad names from any programming language all day long, and not much is accomplished by doing so.Maybe it gets better throughout the video, but it seems like the point here is to shit on C++ as hard as possible while ignoring important details, and without proposing any reasonable solution or being ignorant of an already existing solution.Some of the criticisms are fair, but of those, a lot are ancient problems or even inherited from C, and not much can be done about them.On Sat, 22 Nov 2025 at 00:09, organicoman via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:Hello,I saw this video, and i felt it would be interesting to hear other's opinions. https://youtu.be/7fGB-hjc2Gc?si=EqMPxxxvS40lL4YvRegardsOgSent from my Galaxy--
Std-Proposals mailing list
Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
Received on 2025-11-22 08:58:07