symbol $ is unused in C/C++. I propose to map $p to *p++. That will immediately improve readability and source code of typical C program like two times in size.
>>24 No, that's why it would be so easy to fix and why it is so amazing that even C11 still supports sign+magnitude, one's complement and two's complement (§6.2.6.2). Ensuring two's complement would probably also fix other issues, e.g. undefined overflow behaviour (INT_MAX + 1). I'm not even sure there are any IC-based CPUs at all that don't use two's complement, which makes it even more ridiculuos. We're talking about backwards support for tube-based machines here.
Name:
Anonymous2016-10-30 4:25
The problems with C/C++ are unfixable due standards and backward compatibility.
Name:
Anonymous2016-10-30 6:12
And those probelsm are...?
Name:
Anonymous2016-10-30 6:15
>>27 Mainly long compile times, poorly defined program behavior, ugly syntax, and lack of support for lazy evaluation and self-modifying code.
>>27 Templates and reliance on template everywhere, the crippled and unintuitive operator overloading, no stabke ABI, no reflection, crippled and inefficient tuples, no native varargs(the equivalent is "template-based paramerer pack") despite RTTI, Standard Library bloat and cludges (EASTL exists for a reason), C++ being hard to parse and optimize itself.
It's not "being clever", it's called "using the language".
"readability" is in the eye of the reader. Maybe if YOU can't read the code, the problem is in YOUR head, you fucking illiterate retard!
Name:
Anonymous2016-10-30 23:53
>>35 I can very well read the code and know what its semantics are. Readable code is instantly recognizable to have a single meaning. If you have to interpret the meaning because it's not instantly obvious at first glance, then that code is a source of bugs. These are the tricks that people use to introduce backdoors by intentionally causing buffer overruns and it's not a practice that the secure code industry recommend.
The *p++ is major language idiom used so frequently that everyone knows its meaning. On the other hand code using something like ++--*p++-- will be hard to understand.
Name:
Anonymous2016-10-31 22:42
>>37 Sorry, I meant secure code industry, the people whose life is dedicated to writing secure code.
Name:
Anonymous2016-11-01 12:00
>>46 This is not valid code. Again, will I also get fired for using *p--, ++*p or (*p)++? I see these almost everywhere.
Name:
Anonymous2016-11-01 16:41
>>48 It is better to replace (*p)++ with *p = *p+1
You will get fired for annoying your colleagues and managers, who will be forced to sack you, after getting enough complains from your peers or even your subordinates. IT people love writing anonymous denunciations.
>>48 Depends what kind of people you work with. If they're a bunch of retards who barely claim to know C, probably yes (and you'd be better off going somewhere else anyway.) If they're on the level of Linus Torvalds, Fabrice Bellard, and Brian Kernighan, almost certainly not.