Subj : Re: Compiler and an interpreter
To   : comp.programming
From : Rob Thorpe
Date : Mon Aug 01 2005 09:08 am

Gerry Quinn wrote:
> In article <42ecc57f$0$2849$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net>,
> usenet@jdh30.plus.com says...
> > Gerry Quinn wrote:
> > > In article <42eb8672$0$14673$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>,
> > > usenet@jdh30.plus.com says...
> > >> C++ isn't worth using unless you use the STL, IMHO. Error messages from
> > >> all of the compilers that I have seen are completely unwieldy when using
> > >> the STL. For example, the following code contains an extra "const":
> > >
> > > STL is just a library.  I got on well enough with the MFC collection
> > > classes for a while, although I do prefer STL now.  I still use MFC
> > > CString.  The rest of the stuff is just functions you might need once
> > > in a while.
> > >
> > > [STL example - I'm not sure I would call it C++]
> >
> > I don't think there's any question that it is C++. If you write code that
> > uses the more advanced features of C++ then you'll get many such errors
> > (and probably even compiler errors).
>
> Then you probably shouldn't, unless you need to.
>
> It seems to me that the much maligned folk who "write C in C++" abuse
> the language less than those who try to write Lisp etc. in it!

What Jon's written I can't entirely understand, except that he's using
many of the most complex features of C++ at once.  It isn't really Lisp
written in C++, this would be done differently in Lisp.

It depends very much on your point of view whether the code Jon posted
is idiomatic C++.  A lot of people know C++, but only know some areas
of the language.  Often different programmers know different areas of
the C++ language and write in different dialects of it.

As far as I can tell there aren't many norms amongst C++ programmers
for what idiomatic C++ is.  Some programmers use classes and the STL
and steer clear of everything else.

Stroustrup treats C++ as a multi-paradigm language, where it is
idiomatic/conventional to use the best/most concise paradigm for
expressing what you're doing.  By this measure what Jon wrote probably
is idiomatic.

Personally, I don't think it's very pleasant though, I'd rewrite it in
a simpler way even if it required more code.

.