Does it feel anytime that c++ sometimes reduces problem solving time and increases syntactic, semantic rigor? [closed]

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance. Closed 12 years ago.

C++ introduces OOPS, templates and variety of other concepts. But sometimes I am stuck in unmanageable storm of calling convention incompatibilities between methods, convoluted casting betw开发者_JAVA技巧een distantly connected classes and struggling with code that forces me think in the level of byte-alignment.

I am very tempted to go back to plain old-C language that is low level enough and simple enough that I can spend much of my time solving a problem at hand, than having to figure out the conceptual implementation and nuances of using C++.

What is your take on such an issue. Using C-language as the first class citizen in my code-base and coating it at the end with a C++ primer make for a better way to manage a conceptual code-base ??

---

sometimes I am stuck in unmanageable storm of calling convention incompatibilities between methods, convoluted casting between distantly connected classes and struggling with code that forces me think in the level of byte-alignment.

It sounds like you might be doing something wrong. I don't know what sorts of projects you work on, but I've rarely had to deal with any of those things--certainly never in over 99.9% of the code I've written--and I've written a bit of C++ code (though not nearly as much as others here on StackOverflow).

What is your take on such an issue.

You should consider getting a good book on C++ (like one of the introductory books or any of the best practices books listed in The Definitive C++ Book Guide and List) and really learn C++ if you want to use C++.

---

I often feel the way you do. C++ compilers are incredibly bitchy about insignificant details and, if you considered them an object, they have appalling encapsulation, and they give horrendously bad error messages. Sometimes, programming C++ feels like fighting against the Standard.

However, I'd never, ever ditch it for C. If you're considering it, you fail C++. Yes, templates and their syntax and some of their semantics can be a bitch, but the power they offer is unparalleled. The things offered like automatic memory management and the power of the STL just can't be matched by C.

In addition, nobody is forcing you to use templates. You could write a whole C++ program using nothing but the pre-provided templates. You could never use polymorphism, or templates, or encapsulation, or object-orientation as a whole, and yes, sometimes none of those solutions are appropriate. But it's plain stupid not to give yourself the option.

And if you're casting classes in C++ (frequently), it sounds to me like whoever wrote the original code flat out didn't know what they were doing. Same for byte alignment.

---

• I've never had to worry about byte alignment unless I was writing binary files.
• Casting distantly related classes to each other is bad design.
• I've never worried about calling conventions unless I was writing interrupt routines.

---

If you forced to frequently "cast distantly connected classes" and "think in the level of byte-alignment" - there is something wrong with the architecture of the project. Language is not the problem here.

C++ is heavy. You probably should not use all the features it provides. KISS principle, you know. You can always pretend that C++ is just "C with classes" and exploit templates and other "hard" stuff only when it will provide reasonable improvement in some areas (like code simplicity, as a matter of fact).

---

I recently switched back from C++ to C and took a liking in C99. But it certainly depends on what you are doing. For a library of reasonable size, C99 with its advantages over C89, is good enough, and as somebody else said you can easily provide a C++ wrapper, if necessary. C++, I only would go for a big project that has large amount of code reuse (internal or external) with templates.

Things from C++ I missed in C89 have nothing to do with objects or so, but are simple things as declaration of variables inside the for and a well defined inline feature. C99 has that plus variable length arguments for macros, so I am happy with it.

---

You are not alone. These are all well-known flaws in C++, a language which forces developers to attend incompatible conventions, to struggle to overcome a convoluted caste system, and to take their code in for byte-realignment every 3,000 lines. Definitely switch back to C.