Class objects work like built-in types, but is it worth it?

[tonytech08]

tonytech08 <[email protected]> kirjutas:




I believe these people were a little insulted if you suggested that feature
XXX should be left out of the language because they would not be able to
implement it.

I meant as in: "shouldn't be implemented" rather than "cannot be
implemented".

Deleting existing features also does not bring anything new.

Yes, it does. (Exercise left for the reader).

If you want to
throw out exceptions and RAII, you have to offer something in place of
them.

I like RAII concepts. As far as exceptions, an alternative would be
good, yes.

 

[tonytech08]

I'm pretty sure that I do not understand this.  I think I may not
understand because I may not understand what you mean by complexity.
Could you please explain what you mean by complexity?

Also:

How might it be possible to not have any complexity? Is this limited to
either the programming language itself, or the problem domain?

Why, according to you, is programming more complex with C++?

Is complexity bad? Why? And under what circumstances? Always?

Which computer language would be simpler in your estimation?

1) A single instruction: Flip the bit at <address1> and if the result is
zero branch to <address2> (Note this doesn't require an opcode.)

2) Two instructions:
a) Flip the bit at <address>
b) If the bit at <address1> is zero goto <address2>

If you had to program in one of the above languages, would you want to
add a macro language of some sort?  Would this add or remove complexity
from the programs that you'd write?

Would you prefer to use a slide rule or an electronic calculator? Which
one is more complex? To implement? To use?

Is:
      a += 3;
more complex or less than:
      a = a + 3;

As this thread is already more chaff than wheat, I suggest you start a
new thread on "the complexity of C++" if you want to.