What is c++ programming

is in your opinion a good way to start learning c++ using the last iso iec 14886 (2020) standard?

is in your opinion a good way to start learning c++ using the last iso iec 14886 (2020) standard?

Hi am learning C++ thanks

how?

No, I'm asking for a reason, I mean if someone is learning C/C++ after they know other programming languages, great. If someone is learning C/C++ for college, great. If you want to program micro controllers, great. But if you are learning C/C++ as the only programming language for a job, then don't waste your time.

Unless he is targeting low level stuff, OS, Performance backend services, drivers, etc ..

but rust may easily replace C in that field (this assuming that people want to move because of the safeties that Rust provides in comparison to C)

but rust may easily replace C in that field (this assuming that people want to move because of the safeties that Rust provides in comparison to C)

C++ that's much closer to C and is safer and easier to use than C. C++ is more widely available on different platforms and has much higher number of users than Rust, but still didn't replace C. Why would Rust be any different?

Did you mean C++ is safer than Rust ?

It didn't implied this, did it?

Did you mean C++ is safer than Rust ?

Safe is hard subject to discuss .. even compilers are made differently .. different compilers have different safety levels .. I dont know about rust compiler anything .. does it pass the finctional safety for critical applications? Is it really used in these applications?

Safe is hard subject to discuss .. even compilers are made differently .. different compilers have different safety levels .. I dont know about rust compiler anything .. does it pass the finctional safety for critical applications? Is it really used in these applications?

Why in member initializer list it's not allowed to use copy initialization? More precisely, I can't do the following thing: class Foo { int boo; double goo; public: Foo() : boo = 5, goo = 3.1 {} } I have to write boo(5), goo(3.1) or boo{5}, goo{3.1}

as for the difference between rust and c++, rust put those coding safety practice as default, while c++ needs rules and conventions to enforce them.

C++ that's much closer to C and is safer and easier to use than C. C++ is more widely available on different platforms and has much higher number of users than Rust, but still didn't replace C. Why would Rust be any different?

don't get me wrong but, we are in the context about so-called safety

Differences between languages are big indeed, and no need to teach me how Rust is because I do know it.

class Instruction { protected: type::byte opcode; type::byte cycles; std::string name; public: // constructor Instruction(type::byte ins_opcode, std::string ins_name, type::byte ins_cycles) : opcode{ins_opcode}, cycles{ins_cycles}, name{std::move(ins_name)} {}; }; Why does compiler warn me about opcode, cycles and name being protected?, why do we have those access specifiers if I can't have members as those? Compared to above.... class Instruction { private: type::byte opcode; type::byte cycles; std::string name; public: // constructor Instruction(type::byte ins_opcode, std::string ins_name, type::byte ins_cycles) : opcode{ins_opcode}, cycles{ins_cycles}, name{std::move(ins_name)} {}; inline type::byte get_opcode() const { return opcode; } inline type::byte get_cycles() const { return cycles; } }; Is this way more preferable and better/safer/whatever?

Do I?

class Instruction { protected: type::byte opcode; type::byte cycles; std::string name; public: // constructor Instruction(type::byte ins_opcode, std::string ins_name, type::byte ins_cycles) : opcode{ins_opcode}, cycles{ins_cycles}, name{std::move(ins_name)} {}; }; Why does compiler warn me about opcode, cycles and name being protected?, why do we have those access specifiers if I can't have members as those? Compared to above.... class Instruction { private: type::byte opcode; type::byte cycles; std::string name; public: // constructor Instruction(type::byte ins_opcode, std::string ins_name, type::byte ins_cycles) : opcode{ins_opcode}, cycles{ins_cycles}, name{std::move(ins_name)} {}; inline type::byte get_opcode() const { return opcode; } inline type::byte get_cycles() const { return cycles; } }; Is this way more preferable and better/safer/whatever?

What warning are you getting? Ideally you shouldn't be getting warnings and even if you did, it could be just that the compiler is letting you know that private inheritance would be more secure. If you are going to be inheriting from class Instruction and if the inherited class needs direct access to the base class's data members then making them protected in the base class is not wrong.

if (system("CLS")) system("clear"); can anyone explain this if statement?

Is it too naive to put someone on the other side before knowing what he's thinking...😰

I know right, but LSP (clangd) barks, "Members have protected visibility"

It is probably just an eager warning which can be ignored

Are you serious? AFAIK C is available on a wider variety of platforms than C++. Not the other way around. Also Rust is different because it didn't attempt to be a better C or C++ but a better systems programming language instead. C++ on the other hand started off as C with classes and then added a whole bunch of new paradigms on top of it thus carrying the unnecessary parts of C baggage.

if (system("CLS")) system("clear"); can anyone explain this if statement?

I am not sure I understand what you are saying. You said Rust is safe by default while C++ requires rules and conventions to enforce them. My point was that Rust's safety by default makes it a better choice because it improves developer's productivity. And no amount of conventions and idioms in C++ can prevent bugs as developer's can't think about them all.

cls is a windows clear statement for clearing the console. it returns the exit code of 0 (false) if there's no error, but if this code runs on a unix-like machine, running cls will result in an error because there is no such command there, thus returning a non-zero exit code (which is implicitly casted to a bool true), and thus entering the if statement and running clear instead

if (false) { system("CLS"); } else { system("clear"); }

like this?

it tries to execute cls first, and then if it fails executes clear

Yes, I'm serious. I didn't say that C++ is available on more platforms than C. I said it's available on more platforms than Rust. You don't have to use "C baggage" if you don't need to, but you can expand your existing C code with C++. Making it easier to move from C to C++. And even that process not really happen.

Well people sticking to C instead of moving to C++ is more because the new features that C++ adds are not exactly zero cost abstractions and C programmers prefer to see a direct translation between their code and machine code. This is why many good C programmers continue programming in C. If you are talking about integrating C and C++ code, Rust makes it pretty straightforward as well to interface with your existing C code base (maybe with a little more effort). I am not against C++. I have been programming in C++ for most of my career. I just butted in here to add why Rust has a better chance of becoming a preferred alternative to C/C++ than D or Go ever did.

All features in C++ don't cost anything unless you use them. If you write old style C you'll most likely will get the same code. If you really think that your code is directly translated from C to assembly - you should get more familiar with modern optimizing compilers. With C++ you can continue using practically the same code and refactor it gradually to add other C++ features and make your code more readable, safe and sometimes faster. Rust doesn't allow gradual refactoring.

I am familiar with compiler optimizations but you are missing the point I am trying to make. When I say zero cost abstractions, I am using the phrase in the sense that it costs extra. Take unique_ptr for example. It is often said that unique_ptr is a zero cost abstraction over a raw pointer but it is not. Watch https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rHIkrotSwcc&list=LLkSsu_JvG53vwdMNEDCLLqQ&index=10 Rust doesn't allow gradual refactorings? What exactly do you mean by that? What is it in Rust that inherently prevents refactoring? Do you mean the compiler forcing you to make changes?

This talk is not related to the point you're trying to make. Don't use unique_ptr if you don't have. There is no inherent cost from moving from C to C++. It can be even more efficient, because compiler knows more information from type system. Rust doesn't allow gradual change because with C++ you can start from the same code and change it. Most code will work even without any change. Rust is a different language and its compiler can't compile C.

I beg to differ. That talk specifically points out that uses of unique_ptr is not a zero cost abstraction over a raw pointer. If I don't use the majority of features then what is the benefit of moving to C++? This is exactly what C programmers point out when asked why they don't want to move to C++. Basically they will be using the C parts of C++. This is exactly why embedded programmers turn off/don't use features like dynamic polymorphism, exceptions and a majority of standard library features when programming in C++ on embedded environments. The C++ guidelines btw recommend use of smart pointers. So I would be programming in C++ against the guidelines if I were to continue using raw pointers. Rust does allow gradual refactorings. I am still not sure what you mean when you say it doesn't. Infact the Rust lang book has a chapter on refactoring your code in micro steps and how to achieve the same. Can you give me an example code to show what prevents minor refactorings in Rust?

I can't explain to any more clearer. So it's a pointless discussion.

Is there anyway to get access to MySQL database of localhost via C++ cgi?

Why does bss segment show 8 bytes when there is no variable in the c code ?

if (false) { system("CLS"); } else { system("clear"); }

Why does bss segment show 8 bytes when there is no variable in the c code ?