| So C++, how difficult is it?

| >>727407 easier than Assembler, harder than Game Maker

| >>727442
Does c++ get harder past the basic functions or is it just a lot of memorization of more functions and the rules, quirks, and limits of all those functions?

| >>727518

Basic functions? You mean the STL?

| >>727518 i was feel sad to let this thread empty.. in past i was only learning C# and Java little.. Assembler is language what people really doesn't use.. GM is engine what have simplified own GML.. C++ should be in some way probably ok, but you should expect that you will need a lot things around it and so

| Unless you need speed (which means 3D optimisation, high efficiency maths, machine learning or whatever), it's too difficult for what it's worth. Lot of bullshit related to the fact that it's a low-level language, crappy syntax, for speed that you won't get unless your code logic is flawless.

| God I wish people took CS courses before speaking...

| >>727643 >>727695
> I feel sad leaving a thread empty
> I wish people took CS courses before speaking

Truly the duality of /tech/

| not hard but it is the most complex language
write C

| >>727695 God I wish pretentious people would have the decency of using arguments instead of trying to look smart by saying useless pathetic crap like that.

| C++ isn't hard because it's complex. C++ is hard because it's simpler. Which means you have to do more things manually which are automated in other languages. Due to this it's also less tolerant to bad coding (which has the positive side effect of a more solid codebase). Most mention-able the memory management is a challenge. So before you initialize a variable or an object (especially arrayish ones) you have to take in account the data amount they should/could handle in the end.

| >>727667
>Unless you need speed (which means 3D optimisation, high efficiency maths, machine learning or whatever)
Efficiency, sustainability, powersaving and limited resources (embedded or old devices) aren't a thing anymore?
I don't want to buy and operate a 4GHZ hexacore CPU with 32GB Ram just to type text messages only because some unknowing development trendsetters say "efficency is only for rocket science"

| On the other hand you actually CAN program very efficient in other languages such as python or java (and once even in javascript) The thing is that you need to learn how and to be careful with existing libraries. Because the "easy" languages have a much more rotten codebase. In the end there is no way around putting time into effort to make good software. Sadly good business models contradict good software in many ways.

| I tried C++ for a while, but I didn't like coding in it because I couldn't bend it to my will and make my own DSL without tripping over its specifications. Still, that's probably my own fault. If I'd stuck with it long enough, I could have made it work. That's something you'll see in almost every language, except maybe Malbolge.

I always like to look at the brew scene.

Look at those guys, hacking at low levels and making devices do all sorts of things they couldn't do before.

| If you want to do something low-level, you should actually seek to avoid the constructs of the language beyond them being a tool to your ends. You might even fundamentally break, change or exploit them, unless you want to be a good coder who respects their lang and treats it kindly.

Just try C++, and stick with it for a while unless you don't like something fundamental about it. You'll get in the groove soon enough.

| If you don't, and not for a reason that applies to coding in general, maybe try another lang till you feel comfy.

| It's not difficult. Give it a try g/u/rl

| >>728047 That's why the end of my message explained that the usual bottleneck for efficiency wouldn't be the language, but the code, algorithms and code structure. Those can be learnt with any language, but are easier to mess up with low level languages since everything has to be done by hand.

Total number of posts: 18, last modified on: Mon Jan 1 00:00:00 1609905742

This thread is closed.