Talk:C++

Renaming "Etymology" section to "Derivation of the name C++"

Though etymology is a perfect heading, it may be quite difficult for some people to understand. Changing it to a suitable easily understandable heading is suggested. SmackoVector (talk) 11:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Implementation language???

Seriously, do u guys think that C++ is implemented in C? :| (same thing about java even if that's not the right place to talk about that...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.48.134.18 (talk) 20:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Wrong place for this question, C++ implementation language is implementation defined (i.e. could be C or C++, etc.)MThinkCpp (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

C was used to make the first compiler for C++ then was used to develop itself. Titamation (talk) 21:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

A reliable source is still lacking TEDickey (talk) 09:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

How about http://www.stroustrup.com/hopl2.pdf, page 19, line 12 'so that the very first working C++ compiler was done in C++'. MThinkCpp (talk) 09:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Bjarne talks about the creation of c++ here Titamation (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't match your statement above (Bjarne states that he wrote an intermediate stage which was not exactly C or C++) TEDickey (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

C++ was originally implemented using Cfront to create C-code. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cfront — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.169.35 (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Removed Criticism

Mthinkcpp has removed almost all criticism. Since he has contributed much good things I don't think he made this in bad faith. But also C++ seems for HIM to be the best programming language as it is. There can be valid criticism. So I would like to redo his changes. --Fabiwanne (talk)

The lack of a proper criticism section and the general fanboyism of this article is extremely unfortunate. The reader is left with the impression that C++ can't "take the heat". It'd be much better to list the problems of C++ and let the readers decide. Mkcmkc (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The criticism section in any article and specially in this one is indispensable. All programming languages are subject to criticism in real life. I think the reader at least should know that there are many things/facts such as the list mentioned here: http://yosefk.com/c++fqa/defective.html in which C++ has been challenged/criticised. And those are some of the reasons why there are a plethora of other languages out there (Java, C#, D, Go, etc) which were born trying to address some/all of that concerns, and the reason why the C++ standard is still evolving. Alcides fp (talk) 02:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Criticism sections are not indispensable, it's actually quite the opposite and discouraged by WP policy. WP:CSECTION. Also that link (yosefk) is opinions an original research and has no place here. Criticism should be used throughout or not at all. Splitting the point of view into a section is generally a bad idea. Beakermeep (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

While a criticism of C++ has been re-added, it really seems self-serving. Flexibility in mixing paradigms is NOT why C++ is generally criticized (other languages which do so, such as Python, are celebrated for it). Inconsistency (i.e. the static keyword) due to organic growth from C, difficulty in parsing the grammar (and therefore creating compilers/tools), flaws in the standard library (i.e. std::string intended but not suitable for COW), verbosity of high-level patterns (implementing an container can be quite a feat), are all examples of legitimate criticisms. I'd think the section should be made more robust or removed - right now it's a mockery of the word "criticism." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.220.238 (talk) 14:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

There are a lot of criticisms you can make about C++, and a lot you can make about any language. If you're going to make a list of criticisms about C++, then you should about every programming language; and while maybe feasible, would not be useful if only because a normal reader of wikipedia article could not be expected to judge the relevance of the criticisms. For example, I'm a C++ programmer and the "std::string intended but not suitable for COW" criticism is perhaps true, but doesn't affect the software I write in any meaningful way. Furthermore, the article as it was said that C++ was "compared unfavorably" for reasons that I would consider one of C++'s best qualities njaard (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

"Influenced by" section

Many other pages about programming languages have an "Influenced by" section in that box on the right. C++ could have that too, containing at least C and Simula. Unfortunately the article is locked so I cannot add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.249.133.113 (talk) 10:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

There isn't enough content to create a section (other than a list of a couple of languages) for it (though if you do have the content, post it here for approval) - the necessary details of C++'s ancestors are covered in the C++#History. The article is locked because of vandalism, to (indirectly) edit a locked page, see Wikipedia:PROTECT#Semi-protection. MThinkCpp (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

memory management...

1. is similar to C? Yes, for C programmers which don't know about RAII
2. garbage collector -- again for people which don't know about RAII — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.73.228.23 (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Exception Handling

I see that there is still no paragraph regarding exception handling. Embarrassing. See the paragraph I wrote some time ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C%2B%2B&oldid=530499768