Talk:C++

Code efficiency? What

I was wondering if the article could go more in-depth regarding the efficiency of C++ generated applications. This seems counter-intuitive to my experience with the language, especially being aware of the machine code being generated from it (as expected of a particularly high-programming language). It seems to me that there is more than a good chance of having code portions that entangle with other code portions, or other intricacies and counter-intuitive behavior. It seems the article makes unsourced claims to the contrary. Not that I am associated with the author of this, but google is rich with contra-evidence: [1] --31.210.186.49 (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello there! As with any other programming language article, it's best not to include such evaluations. No performance/efficiency analysis can be made universal as there are just too many things involved – programming environment, benchmarked workload, compiler and its version, used optimizations, etc. And, as always, there's no guarantee that writing assembler code always results in the best possible execution speed. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of C++ is not allowed on the C++ Wikipedia page (and god help you if you mention the C++ FQA). Even criticism on this talk page (of which there has been much) will be scrubbed clean in fairly short order, as you can see. Mkcmkc (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

C++14 as new stable standard

Isn't the new C++ standard already stable? I'm a little bit confused, since the C++14 page(and the linked reference: https://isocpp.org/blog/2014/08/we-have-cpp14) already notes, that it's stable, with the official name: "International Standard ISO/IEC 14882:2014(E) Programming Language C++" 213.47.182.54 (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

As of Jan 14, 2015, it is a published specification. So I would feel justified in changing it. However, it was published as 14882:2015 rather than 2014. And yet, the ISO abstract calls it 2014. So I'm not sure at present what we should call it. So I don't feel comfortable changing it. Korval (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

... And now it says Dec 15, 2014, and it's called 14882:2014. Considering the numbers involved (12-15-14 <-> 1-14-15), I'm guessing that someone at ISO just goofed, then got corrected. Korval (talk) 05:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Pronunciation clarity in introduction

The article opens with the phrase "C++ (pronounced cee plus plus)..."

There is no established pronunciation for the "word" cee, but there is one for the word see.

Using "cee" could be confusing, especially for non-native speakers of English. The letter C sometimes makes an S sound and sometimes makes a K sound. The letter S only makes an S sound.

Using the letter C to explain how to pronounce the letter C is like defining "epideictic" with the phrase "something that's epideictic." It's self-referential and doesn't clarify anything.

I'm changing it to "see."

--Mr. Billion (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello! That cee would be one of the letter names, please see English alphabet § Letter names. Thus, I've reverted your edit, together with explaining it a bit further. Hope you agree. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

That may be the way to spell out the letter name, but are we explaining how to spell out the letter name, or are we explaining pronunciation? Is the average reader more familiar with the table you linked, or with the word see?--Mr. Billion (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's the usual way something is written to indicate that it is to be pronounced letter by letter. If we wanted the actual pronounciation, we should be using pronounciation keys such as /ˈsiː/ in case of letter c. At the same time, plus wouldn't be the approximate pronounciation for "plus" – it would be more like plous or something similar, if not using /plʌs/. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 01:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Could this addition be some kind of a compromise? Perhaps it's an overkill, but might be useful. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

This seems OK now. Thanks! --Mr. Billion (talk) 06:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad that you like it. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Criticism

The criticism section of the article is surprisingly short. It's just two sentences (including one that I added!). Compare this to the Java programming language. It has a whole separate wikipedia article for criticism!Michael9422 (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah! And it's really frustrating to not be able to know who was it and why he prevented us from adding content to the criticisms section. The language is so castigated, yet barely any mention of it is given, as if a dictatorial authority had been censoring it. Would that person PLEASE tell us the reason, why he wouldn't let us add content to it! Dannyniu (talk) 06:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The C++ language is damn well castigated, but hardly something is said so here. I guess the reason might probably have something to do with the policy of Wikipedia:

1. If we were to include all those criticism claims, they have to be **Notably** **Referenced**. However! Since very little programmers and computer scientists are devoted to academics, and as a result little paper was published on the research of the topic, and therefore little references were notable enough to cause the expansion of criticism section here.
2. Right now, those who are actually concerned with the pitfalls of C++, are actually researchers themselves. And these people cannot get to voice the opinion collaboratively.

Dannyniu (talk) 07:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd say that the bigger problem is not so much the lack of "notable" references, but of reliable references. Most discussion of the problems of C++ happen on forums, mailing lists, or similar areas. Maybe you'll find a blog post or two about some C++ issue, but that's about it. People complaining about the language don't really qualify as "news", so most reliable sources don't talk about it.

The closest thing to a reliable source for C++ criticism is the C++ FQA page. And its reliability has very much been questioned. Even people who agree with some of the criticisms on the site feel that there's plenty of nonsense there too. That makes the information less than reliable.

Also, let's look at your example of the Java criticisms article. I don't use Java and have no real knowledge to stand on any side in such a debate. But much of the section on the Java language reads like someone just ran around the Internet and found a couple of blogs that said bad things about the language, then posted them. A blog titled "Stevey's Blog Rants" is not a reliable source by any reasonable definition. Similarly, a site that states: "The reason I posted it nearly seven years ago was not to prove anything, but rather to spark conversation." is not very reliable.

In short, criticism sections attract BS. For whatever good they may do, unless they are well-curated, they will attract lots of garbage.

Furthermore, I don't really see the point of the section. You don't see criticism section on most other languages. Oh sure, Java may have an entire page on criticisms. But JavaScript doesn't even have a section, let alone a page. Python's page doesn't include a section on how some people don't like using whitespace as syntax. You don't see a section on C#'s page about some widely debated inadequacy of that language. It seems to me that a criticism section is hardly essential to a programming language page.

So why don't you answer the reverse question: why does the C++ article need a criticism section? Because you feel that it is "damn well castigated"? Korval (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that a criticism section is appropriate because, for example, it is noteworthy that some high profile programmers have criticized it, including Bjarne Stroustrup, who is attributed to have said "Within C++ there is a much smaller and cleaner language struggling to get out". I think that the wikipedia article on string theory has an example of a helpful criticism section. Is it not?Michael9422 (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not knowledgeable about string theory, I just mentioned that article as an example of a criticism section with dissenting views from experts in the field.Michael9422 (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Rick Mascitti

Rick mascitti is a link to a redirect to the page C++ (recursive link :)) I would remove the link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.221.43 (talk) 14:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

That would be fine, please go ahead with unlinking. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 14:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Unlinked, and also improved the Rick Mascitti redirect. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)