> You can write simple, readable, and maintainable code in C++ without ever needing to use templates, operator overloading, or any of the other more advanced features of the language.

Maybe you can do that. But you are probably working in a team. And inevitably someone else in your team thinks that operator overloading and template metaprogramming are beautiful things, and you have to work with their code. I speak from experience.

▲

dayvster 5 days ago | parent [-]

This is true and I will concede this point. Appreciate your feedback!

However if I may raise my counter point I like to have a rule that C++ should be written mostly as if you were writing C as much as possible until you need some of it's additional features and complexities.

Problem is when somebody on the team does not share this view though, that much is true :)

▲

jbstack 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Counter-counter point: if you're going to actively avoid using the majority of a language's features and for the most part write code in it as if it were a different language, doesn't that suggest the language is deeply flawed?

(Note: I'm not saying it is deeply flawed, just that this particular way of using it suggests so).

	▲	dayvster 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		I wouldn't necessarily put it like that no. I'd say all languages have features that fit certain situations but should be avoided in other situations. It's like a well equiped workshop, just because you have access to a chainsaw but do not need to use it to build a table does not mean it's a bad workshop. C is very barebones, languages like C++. C#, Rust and so on are not. Just because you don't need all of it's features does not make those languages inherently bad. Great question or in this case counter-counter point though.

▲

digitalPhonix 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> However if I may raise my counter point I like to have a rule that C++ should be written mostly as if you were writing C as much as possible until you need some of it's additional features and complexities.

How do you define “need” for extra features? C and C++ can fundamentally both do the same thing so if you’re going to write C style C++, why not just write C and avoid all of C++’s foot guns?

	▲	bregma 4 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		RAII. It's the major C++ feature I miss in C, and the one that fixes most memory leak problems in C. Also, std::vector, which solves the remaining memory leak (and most bounds problems) in C. And std::string, which solves the remaining memory leak problems.
	▲	dayvster 5 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Excellent question, I guess it depends on the team mostly how they define which features they need and which are better avoided. As for why not just go for C. You can write C++ fully as if it were C, you can not ever turn C into C++