> y'know you can check if an operator has been overloaded

And there lies the problem with C++: to be sure, you have to check. C++ code can't be taken at face value -- the most innocuous-looking code could be a ticking bomb.

▲

pjmlp 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Just like any C function without looking into the translation unit, don't say you blindly believe on the function name.

▲

lelele 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Not really. C++ is on another level altogether: the code could be calling implicit conversion operators, the compiler could have instantiated some template code in an unforeseen way, and so on.

Years ago, I was really proficient in C++, but after a year of programming in C#, I realized that not once had the behavior of my code caught me off guard. In the following years, I only ran into quirky behavior a couple of times. I could finally program without the constant mental overhead of watching out for C++ pitfalls.

▲

pjmlp 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I suppose you're aware C# also has implicit conversion operators, operator overloading, reflection, aspect oriented programming, compiler plugins, interceptors.

Seems strange to talk down C++ while praising C#, which incidentally has been getting features to increase its use where Microsoft previously might have used C++ instead.

You catch pitfalls in any language the same way, using static analysis, which C authors introduced right in 1979, acknowledging the issues with language, which they decided to outsource to another tool, instead of improving the language.

A long tradition in computing.

	▲	lelele an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, C# is becoming more and more complex, but IMO C++ is still in a class of its own. Just compare how many different, sometimes competing ways there are to initialize variables in C++, each with its own subtleties. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. And of course, even if C++'s user base seems to be shrinking, it still works well for some categories of programmers.

▲

rfgplk 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

But isn't this a problem with all code? Looking at a Rust function signature how can you be sure that it does what it says it does? Or python?

	▲	lelele 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		See my reply to a similar objection: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48520416

▲

LoganDark 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> C++ code can't be taken at face value -- the most innocuous-looking code could be a ticking bomb.

You can't take C code at face value either. The name of a method or type doesn't tell you what it does. It could longjmp for all you know.

	▲	lelele 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		See my reply to a similar objection: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48520416