| ▲ | HackerThemAll 2 hours ago | |
Yes, but no. I learned C++ in '90s when it was C with classes and some other noise added by Stroustrup. During the some 25 years that followed it had became a mess that's insanely hard to work with. I'm not going back to this language. I prefer plain C or Rust, leaning towards Rust when I fully comprehend the lifetime and borrow checker. Or when I have the luxury of having a GCed runtime, then the .NET with its easiest C# language with wonderful abundance of great libraries is the best choice. Nobody was ever fired for using .NET (for right purposes). | ||
| ▲ | PaulDavisThe1st 5 minutes ago | parent [-] | |
Tiring how often this needs to be said, but if you want "C with classes", you can just use C++ that way. I've been using C++ for more than 30 years (I added thread_local to Cfront back in the early 90s), and while the language has grown dramatically in that time, there is fundamentally nothing that would prevent me from writing "C with classes" using the modern version. I don't do that because I also like RAII, and polymorphism, and operator overloading and ... I've never used .NET and could not imagine any scenario under which I would. The libraries that matter to me are mostly written in C or C++ and there are more of them than I'd ever need, mostly. | ||