> Where C++ gives you many slightly different takes on the same concept (e.g. unique_ptr, shared_ptr and raw pointers), C gives you one way to go and that one has a conveniently compact notation (such as float
).You use unique_ptr and shared_ptr because float is unsafe. If you don't care about the safety that smart pointers provide, you can use float* in C++ too.
> ticking with the example of matrix math, it is baffling how C code is often more compact and readable than C++ code. A matrix declaration would be float matrix[4][4]; [...] Of course, you could take the same approach in C++ but then you are not really using C++. The example from above in C could be simply: float* top = matrix;
But that's not that same thing, is it? I fail to see how you're actually getting the top 3 rows there; you're just assigning a pointer. Again, you're making your code less safe and expressive by using no abstraction at all.
And please, how is `matrix_add(matrix_mul(A, B), c)` more compact and readable than `A*B + c`? And this is being kind to the C version.
If the problem is with C++'s compilation times, then it's perfectly reasonable; this is one of the major problems of the language. But using unsafe constructs and then saying that they're better than C++'s safer alternatives is just comparing apples to oranges.
You use unique_ptr and shared_ptr because float is unsafe. If you don't care about the safety that smart pointers provide, you can use float* in C++ too.
> ticking with the example of matrix math, it is baffling how C code is often more compact and readable than C++ code. A matrix declaration would be float matrix[4][4]; [...] Of course, you could take the same approach in C++ but then you are not really using C++. The example from above in C could be simply: float* top = matrix;
But that's not that same thing, is it? I fail to see how you're actually getting the top 3 rows there; you're just assigning a pointer. Again, you're making your code less safe and expressive by using no abstraction at all.
And please, how is `matrix_add(matrix_mul(A, B), c)` more compact and readable than `A*B + c`? And this is being kind to the C version.
If the problem is with C++'s compilation times, then it's perfectly reasonable; this is one of the major problems of the language. But using unsafe constructs and then saying that they're better than C++'s safer alternatives is just comparing apples to oranges.