Why do people still develop anything in C++? It's literally

>>56506906
You're the cuck for not getting a different job during those 15 years

>>56506933
Tell that to my six figure salary. But that's not the point.

>>56506945
No.. the point is that you hate C++, and you're telling people to stop using it, but you're such a cuck you've stayed at the same place using a language you hate for 15 years, because you're afraid of change and don't think you can get a 6 figure salary anywhere else.

Most of us don't even use c++. Why else would you post a big thing complaining about c++? It's because you hate your job and you're too much of a pussy to change.

>>56506961
>most of us don't even use C++
>pussy
>cuck
>unreasonably angry and jealous

Sorry I thought there might be adults here.

>>56506978
On the surface you're telling the world to stop using C++ but you're really just telling yourself. You. Are. A. Pussy.

>for literally no gain in performance
Keep telling yourself that.

>>56506985
Yep, definitely still children awake.

I guess I'm still looking at this place with rose-tinted glasses, from back when you could post about topics here and get mature discussions about technology without ad-hominem. That hasn't happened in years.

You can go back to jerking off to anime girls and living in mom's basement while pretending to be l33t from using Ubuntu on your Dell. I won't waste my time looking for further replies from you kids.


>>56507012
Bud check the benchmarks. Fucking Java outperforms C++ in most test cases. It's a disgrace.

File: 1446227766875.jpg (17KB, 316x239px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 316x239px

>>56506978
see >>56506961

15 years to get another job. sounds like someone is a little buttmad

File: 1472518210249.jpg (370KB, 608x1070px) Image search: [Google]

370KB, 608x1070px

>>56507025
>he doesnt know he is the OP and he is a faggot

I bet those benchmarks were on the Microsoft version of c++

>>56507025
Fascinating to see the defense mechanisms kick in. You posted, looking for commiserations about how bad your shit language that you've tied yourself to, but I pointed out that you're responsible for your own destiny. You can't seem to take responsibility, or to admit that perhaps you've made a mistake in life, so you call me a kid and say I have no professional experience when I already owned you. By the way, I also have a 6 figure salary and I'm also over 30. Luckily I didn't chain myself to a shit language and I don't fear getting new jobs.

>>56506906
>Separate header and implementation files?
If you can't see why this is a good idea then you are braindead, this is a bonus to the language, not for retard code monkeys.

> Arrays with no understanding of their own size?
What are you even talking about?

>>56506906
I dont know what u are talking about.

Java is the top language and everyone knows it. What's ur point? I hate C++ coming from python but u gotta understand that conpanies work with what they know best and wont welcome change

>>56506906
I'll take the bait

>Why do people still develop anything in C++?
It's low level enough to write realtime, low-overhead or performance-intensive code in it, but high level enough to build complicated abstractions

>Separate header and implementation files?
This is what makes dynamic libraries possible, apart from being faster to compile (you can compile translation units in parallel)

>Arrays with no understanding of their own size?
It's called a primitive data type. It doesn't have to be immensely useful by itself, it has to be a fundamental building block. There's nothing stopping you from using a (length, array) pair as your own array-with-known-length type, and C++ has built-in data types for exactly this.

>Unimaginable bloat in the C++ standard libraries and yet missing commonly-used functions like lower-casing a string?
Letter casing is nontrivial and best handled by an internationalizion library like ICU.

>Performance that has steadily declined with every iteration to the point that even VM-based languages outperform it?
A language doesn't have performance. If you're suggering that GCC is producing slower code as the years go by, then you're simply wrong.

>No industry standard support for language extensions from over two years ago?
I don't understand what this sentence is supposed to me.

>Near-worthless refactorization possibilities?
Refactorization potential = abstraction potential. If you're implying C++ has no abstraction potential, you're simply wrong. It has a turing complete type system and extremely extensive metaprogramming facilities. You can even implement monads (good luck doing that in python)

>Again I ask, why the fuck are people still developing new applications in this garbage pile of poor design and implementation?
Experience, industry-ruggedness, library compatibility, existing infrastructure, availability of documentation, need I go on?

>>56506945
>MUH SIX FIGS
Is this seriously the end goal for you "people"?

>>56507025
>talking about mature discussion
>complaining about ad hominems
>"xDDD U LIVE IN UR MOMS BASEMENT AND JACK OFF TO ANIME, OWN3D!!!"

If you have 15 years experience, you'd be able to get a different and likely better job with a comparable salary. Chances are your salary, like everything else anyone's said about themselves on this board, is made up, though, and you just flip burgers for a living.

>>56506906
Holy shit, you sound just like my dad.

>>56507025
>Bud check the benchmarks. Fucking Java outperforms C++ in most test cases. It's a disgrace.
If Java code passed through a Java compiler produces assembly that solves a problem in a given amount of time, you can reverse engineer an equivalent C program that produces a similar assembly.

Like Einstein said, nothing can ever be faster than C. QED

I use c++ cause pajeet dont

>If you need low level code, then you use C

C has very few advantages over C++ (restrict pointers, ABI standard), and many disadvantages. Why would you not use C++ for low level stuff? Let's see your gripes with C++...

>Separate header and implementation files?
That's how C does it.

>Arrays with no understanding of their own size?
Only if you use a C-style array. Otherwise there's std::array and std::vector.

>Unimaginable bloat in the C++ standard libraries
And so you would rather use Java, which is even more bloated?

>and yet missing commonly-used functions like lower-casing a string?
Just tolower() all of the chars.

>Performance that has steadily declined with every iteration to the point that even VM-based languages outperform it?
VM-based languages whose implementations are made in C++?

The problems with performance in C++ generally tend to be related to specific implementations of the STL. You are more than capable of rolling your own if you are not satisfied with their performance. It will most certainly beat out anything coming out of Node.JS, the JVM, and the CLR, which normally perform worse than C++ on the majority of benchmarks.