You must log in or register to comment.
C++ the good parts exclusively uses on stack allocation and passing by const reference without ever introducing pointers.
You know this to be true.
Pointers is a pathway to memory that some consider to be… unnatural
Because its essential for application use where memory management becomes extremely vital, usually due to the rom or memory to be extremely linited in size. Worrying about memory management (something C++ makes mandatory) is something not all programmers need to care about, but having automated memory mangement is also what causes bloat that comes with modern applications, due to bad programming practices of not caring about it.
Only Garbage Collectors deal in absolutes
deleted by creator
When you ever call new/malloc, its mandatory(dynamic allocation). For general programming, the size is usually decided at compilation.
Yes destructors will unallocate the memory, but the process of writing the destructor is part of the task of memory management
It becomes madness if you attempt to call dynamic memory outside of a class and its destructor, and hopefully the dev actually remembers to release said memory when their done.
I tried to get that reference, but MemoryAccessOutOfBounds.
->
This is basically C++ in the embedded world, and yes it’s the only good C++
Also Qt basically forces you into this mode… and yea, it is a better way.
Only integral unsigned numbers, no reference taking at all, no side-effect operators…
It sounds like a lie to me. Everyone knows there are no good parts of JavaScript.
Doug? That you?
It has some good parts, such as the ability to use for loops, and the fact you can kind of avoid using it as much thanks to it’s webassembly support
The problem is everyone disagrees on what part of C++ is good… Some like C+classes. Some like intense meta programming and some like functional programming and all are valid C++ that people advocate for.
deleted by creator
Switch up the paradigm… in case you forgot to break out it
deleted by creator
that’s still too thick a book for the good parts of javascript
This is for any subject.
There’s a LOT of things that you don’t need to know. Take for example, cooking. To get good, you don’t need to know how fancy tricks. You just need to know the basics very well.
But after being experienced, it’s valuable to know the other 95%. Those weird edge cases.
There’s a difference: in this case it’s not about omitting fancy tricks you don’t need to know until you become an expert; it’s about omitting ill-considered features that should never have existed to begin with (or, at best, features that made sense at some point in the past but don’t anymore) and that nobody should ever use again no matter how expert they get.
The majority of dumb stuff in Javascript is that it has some counterintuitive way of doing something that it shouldn’t do at all, so only teaching the good parts works. So teaching just the good parts is pretty reasonable.
deleted by creator
