yeah big 🍆 energy

@pedro gomes tell me you don't know anything about CPP without actually telling me

​​@pedro gomes bro stop u really don’t Know a shit about c++ it's not only C + classes

dude, in C# you can also use OOP technique, functional technique (because there's delegates and such; LINQ is basically functional programming if you like) or others if you want to do so. I bet same goes for Java (I'm mostly program in C# and don't have much experience in Java, except the examples I read in books)

@@loam he means the basic memory management mechanisms and language primitives are not designed around the OOP paradigm as in Java, C# or the big contender at the time SmallTalk (I still use Smalltalk at my job), OPP in C++ are features on a higher level of abstraction not fundamental in the language design.

@@loam In Java you can't declare things outside of a class forcing you to use classes, pretty sure the same goes for C#. C++ can be procedural without the need for any classes, matter of fact I don't think I ever need classes in C++ or certain other OOP features

@@loam True, you can do some functional things in an OO context. C++ can be used well with out a single class, on the same hand, it's not true OO because things are not derived from an ultimate root/base object. There isn't implicit boxing and unboxing in C++ like there are in pure OO languages.

c++ is not an oop language because it does not force you to write object oriented code. it has more oop features than java like multiple inheritance.

Would you have dinner with him but at the end of it you have to give him head?

@@Jacno77 asking the real questions

Saludos! Hermano del alma

The guy has never shipped production code, ever. But people praise him for adding shitty features whose efficiency wasn't measured at all, to a language that has existed since the 70s and which was used to design programs made in the 80-90s that still works today ( i.e WindowsNT and Linux were made with C).

Makes sense I guess

I know. I'm consistently WRECKING IT solo or in small collabs.

Id say 4 is the limit and thats a generous number. Any more and the group totally breaks apart

Thy will be done.

To be fair you're allowed to think that C++ is a masterpiece if you don't actually have to use it 😩

Part of the answer is because it strikes a good balance between efficiency and ease of use. Part of the answer is in comparing it to everything that came before.

I learned it decades ago. STL has improved - I mean back in the day it was so buggy we used to use the dinkum library in place of it. It’s really a terrible language. ukposts.info/have/v-deo/aZllYZtopqGL1as.html

Yeah its a beast of its own, i still remember my first language....C. It was lets just say an experience. Planning on revisiting it though.

@@hexadecimalhexadecimal5241 I'm learning C# now. It's pretty tough because I'm going the self taught route, but it's been fun and rewarding (and really frustrating at times)

@Robert Stimmel The Devs of unreal are responsible for Triple-A video games. This guy is responsible for making a language that got popular. Games & game engines would've emerge from different languages. Look at Unity.

@@cristiancosneanuwhile i 101% agree the lang doesn’t matter for video games and language debates are usually pointless for from the ground projects like game engines. It’s important to note a vast amount of unity’s backend in cpp. Just the user/dev facing scripting system and so bindgen between the cpp and CLR is c#

C++ is not my favorite language, but I can't deny it's perhaps the most powerful out there.

Yeah java is beautifully simple to me, I wish it had the same performance as well.

I personally prefer Scala after having some time to learn it. But the nice functional abstractions end up hurting performance for pretty much any CPU bound task. You end up reverting to loops and mutable variables which feel very out of place.

The JVM itself fails on this principle, seems to me. Performance tuning on JVM is like voodoo black magic

@@kevalan1042 Java is only 1.8 times slower than C. Which if you think about it is crazy.

@@bagzhansadvakassov1093 The JVM is indeed impressive, but 80% cost is definitely not zero-overhead. Also, optimizing C is *much* more principled and predictable than optimizing JVM-targeting code

yes, and he protected us from "subjective" c, which some fruit company likes very much.

I might be wrong, but I think you could do it just as fast with a complex class. But done incorrectly, it could definitely introduce inefficiencies.

He is talking about using a good abstraction, not any abstraction.

@@igorsilva8791 lol

@@igorsilva8791what defines a good abstraction? “You are not doing it right” isn’t good advice

all try...catch work this way, regardless of language (C#, Java, JavaScript, etc.)... your catch handler should never do anything that would throw an error. that is an "unhandled error". unhandled errors cause crashes. this is not a C++ thing. just use better error handling practices

Use something like Rust's Result maybe?

@@jeffmccloud905 I think swift makes exceptions more explicit.

ukposts.info/have/v-deo/aZllYZtopqGL1as.html

Maybe his GitHub does

yer funny how the dude who designed and tested this shit for decades has a deep perspective of the inner workings. super odd.

@@corinsenok Not his point though.

@@shashishekhar---- nor was it bjarnes point.

Due to polymorphism? Doesn't c++ identify which one's which through parameter types?

Correct. But on the other hand, what would be the alternative implementation? Branching? Branching also has a cost. So you just have to pick your cost in some situations.

Zero overhead abstraction doesn't mean zero cost. It means you couldn't implement it any faster manually.

@@revimfadli4666 It does. As long as you don't use virtual functions, it's known at compile time. It can then be inlined and therefore use zero cost.

You are so completely wrong on this, and I am a big detractor of OOP. An object in memory is just an instance + functions. If you know the type, you know the function. Polymorphism is a separate thing. Also, not all inlinings are really zero cost (not that such a thing even exists). Sometimes saving memory is more important.

@@__Brandon__ Do your homework before responding - it is hardly a secret that c++ relies on runtime libraries for a good deal of it's functionality.

pedro gomes he designed c++ is all they were saying

@@kensei4237 he's not even making an argument. He's pretending to have made an argument by showing off that he read a book and pointing to what I only assume is an opinionated text in the book. @pedro_gomes you cite papers and data, not opinions. now try again

@@MuhsinFatih Lol, did you read it tho...he right in calling out your opinionated fangirling.

@@MuhsinFatih I looked up that book he speaks of and it costs money. I have to spend money to even see the page he is talking about. Edit: Maybe I can find it at the library.

@pedro gomes is that page of the book available for free or do I have to spend money to see it?

Yes and no, it depends, low coupling is generally achieved through writing more code, wrappers, interfaces, etc, which for some small applications it's not worth it, object orientation is just a way to not repeating code, it just works on the short term, the best language to handle that equilibrium is golang, where you make composition instead of inheritance but you do it in an inheritance way and have the best of both worlds

Exaclty, so many things exist just for the backwards compatibility that it bloats the language. Either remove the unnecessary new stuff (like classes, we already have structs, why do we need classes?) Or forget backwards compatibility.

seems really short sighted to remove backwards compatibility, for a marginal benefit

@@gwills9337 fair point but it would also make the language easier and possibly faster. Also, because it would be nearly the same, a trans-compiler could be developed to translate C to C++.

@machine C is so popular because of the preprocessor and many other things. You can not replace the preprocessor by templates. You can replace a lot of it but not all, especially on low level. Most programming languages that want to be a replacement for C do not have a preprocessor and they all failed to become popular.

​@machine Templates in their current form are also a large part of what is wrong with modern C++. They are perfectly capable of doing very cool things with meta programming and are one of the big reasons why modern C++ is so good, but their current design is very deeply entrenched in backwards compatibility with techniques from older C++ versions. Many of the features that get added cater to building bridges around pitfalls that led to smelly code rather than addressing the core issues surrounding why the language fell short there. The pitfalls are still there, but they just aren't as visible as they were before. Two examples of really good features that were added that only partially mask really smelly code are C++17's fold expressions and std::apply. Fold expressions provide a shorthand way of expanding a template parameter pack without recursive templates, and std::apply provides a very nice method of unpacking a std::tuple's contents to be deployed as a function's arguments. These were both very big problems with C++'s method of meta programming with std::tuple argument expansion being particularly nasty. I love these two features because they are incredible simplifications of solutions to work around those problems, but because they are workarounds they betray the design flaws of C++'s templates. C++'s templates were never intended to be used for meta programming to my knowledge, so they weren't designed around it. However, because they were there and they were turing complete people started using them to generate and optimize run time code. I'd have to imagine this lead to an increased demand for new features to work around specific pain points with advanced template usage, and discovery of things like SFINAE further supported that usage. To be exact, I found a claim that many of these features were expanded upon specifically to aid development of the STL, and while I can believe it I cannot confirm or deny. Rather than getting a deliberately planned and well thought out meta programming feature we got expansions on templates that made them easier to use. I appreciate all the work that has been put into expanding their capabilities, but I also can't help but wish we got a cleaner and more intuitive abstraction for the features we currently rely on templates for.

Bruh, dont act like you work on projects that size everyday.

@@meuko hehe got em

That’s guido van rossum for python

No - he doesn't actually have final control over C++ because it's created by a standards committee. He is just a "first among equals" kind of thing.

So 'C' is better..?.i think is more complicated.

@@gustavcc.m.7311 Not difficult. It takes time but you can take advantage of pointers. C++ has objects (of different type) you can create and destroy. C has pointers (of any type) you can allocate and free.

@@nmagko My question is WHY do you malloc/free/new/delete. What's wrong with T object. instead of T* object=new T; or auto object=std::make_unique(); ? It makes no sense for me. pointer is abused a lot in today's world.

@@gustavcc.m.7311 Joel Spoelsky, former CEO of Stackoverflow has said pretty much every programmer should know C

Thinking that a difference between languages is "C++ has objects while C has pointers and raw memory management" is plain wrong.

OOP is designed to be slow

I routinely write months of code without ever writing a destructor and try to minimize dynamic memory altogether. You seem to try using c++ in java/C# style maybe???

In C++ that's c++11 and newer, there is very few reasons to use new/delete. I've written an entire state machine that is optimized away at compile time.

Given the myriad applications of dynamic memory, that must severely limit the kinds of applications you write. Consider that even text strings require dynamic memory, unless you impose arbitrary limits on the lengths of your buffers. Here is a discussion of how to manage dynamic memory: github.com/ldo/a_structured_discipline_of_programming

@@lawrencedoliveiro9104 i didn't say dynamic memory. std::shared_ptr and std::unique_ptr instead of new and delete. In fairness I only glaced at it, but it looked like either c++03 or C.

What does Python has to do with anything? It's an interpreted languages not compiled. Can as well compare C++ with bash by this logic.

Tim Verweij “The what?” (;

@@superuser8636 (Again) The seero o'erhead principle :-O

@@rubenpartono It's been two months and I can just read your comment out loud without having to replay the clip to understand the video :D

Lol you are right

@@deepankararya1994 Adding features isn't always good.

@@inxiti Agree on that! The point I was trying to make is one should be very selective while adding features to language.

Which features are you talking about?

@@deepankararya1994 , php, javascript etc

@@isura.m that's a good question, features like move semantics, constexpr and others are really good