Why You Should Know C++

Wow, I like C++ (at least, more than most), but I don't agree on any of those points.<p>In fact, I am sad to say that unless your job requires it, I can't really think of any reason to learn the language. It relies on a mixture of paradigms that are easier learned from other languages where they are isolated. And for lolevel stuff, you are better off learning C.

I'll go for a point-by-point critique.<p>Point 1 tacitly assumes that learning C++ not only teaches you a common subset of many other popular languages, but also is the easiest way to learn said subset. This is wrong: a lot of simpler languages can teach you the same, e.g. JavaScript or pre-1.5 Java.<p>Point 3 says a given code sample in the wild has higher probability of being in C++ than any other language. This clashes with my impressions.<p>Point 4 assumes that the main difficulty of C++ is due to pointers and manual memory management, and that knowing your way around those issues will help you in other programming areas anyway. This sounds wrong to me: C shares those "difficulties" with C++ and isn't generally regarded as a hard language. The difficulty of C++ mostly stems from design decisions unique to C++ and useless elsewhere, like template metaprogramming or the dangerous combination of manual memory management with exception handling.<p>Point 5 implies that C++ invented parametric polymorphism and that this facility is essential to make algorithms work on a variety of data types. Wrong on both counts: ML and Ada generics predate C++, and Smalltalk-like dynamically typed languages solve the same problem without type parameterization.<p>Point 6 assumes more libraries have C++ interfaces than C interfaces, which is wrong by an order of magnitude at least.<p>Point 9 assumes most programmers are more interested in performance-oriented and algorithmically complex projects. Can't give statistics here, but I'm a data point to the contrary: I love UI and frontend work.<p>Point 10 is valid.<p>My own reasons for knowing C++ are a combination of point 10 and the need to muck around with <a href="http://mapnik.org" rel="nofollow">http://mapnik.org</a> - the only C++ library I ever found useful. And its code sucks, I'd kill for a C/Python alternative.

My reason not to learn C++: There are so many things one should know, that it is not rational to learn all the arcane details of C++. Every decision to learn something is an implicit decision not learn everything else.

No discussion of C++ should go without mentioning the C++ FQA (Frequently Questioned Answers). It carefully explains every single thing wrong with the language, and there's a LOT to explain.<p><a href="http://yosefk.com/c++fqa/" rel="nofollow">http://yosefk.com/c++fqa/</a><p>Skip to <a href="http://yosefk.com/c++fqa/defective.html" rel="nofollow">http://yosefk.com/c++fqa/defective.html</a> for a great overview. And if anyone ever mentions "templates" again I'm gonna smack them hard.

3. Code samples in books are more likely to be in Java or Python than C++.<p>6. Libraries are more likely to have native C bindings than native C++ bindings.

Life is too short for c++. That's what I always say (even at job interviews..)

I agree with everything but (1), (5), and (10).<p>(1) Other languages may be influenced by C++ (especially at a syntactic level, and, superficially, in their object models). But those other languages are far easier to learn and become facile with than C++ is. Point (1) advocates for learning languages in the wrong order.<p>(5) Templates and generic programming are just tools to mitigate the badness of C++.<p>(10) Though a majority of the smartest hackers I've worked with know C, a minority of them are C++ developers. And that still leaves plenty of room for smart people who know neither language.

"You will hardly be seen as a hacker if you don’t know C++"<p>Yeah right! You are "seen as a hacker" if you write code that is useful to others and/or is brilliant in some respect. Nothing to do with knowing a particular language.<p>If knowledge of a specific language <i>is</i> a criterion, I'd rather have someone be an expert in C/lisp/smalltalk/haskell/prolog.... C++ originates or embodies no concepts that weren't discovered or done better elsewhere.<p>e.g: An expert smalltalker is more likely to understand OO than a C++ programmer.

&#62; your reputation as a programmer will be lower if you don’t know it<p>I <i>could</i> learn C++, or I could learn Smalltalk, Scheme and Haskell in the same time and mental space.

I like to use C++ just as a better C.<p>Things like single line // comments and not having to declare all your variables at the top of your functions is really useful.<p>STL is also really useful in that you don't have to (badly) reinvent basic data structures like vectors and maps. Of course, STL also means reading compiler errors that are pages long... :-/

In the context of code sampled, the difference between Java and C++ (and PHP and Javascript and a few others) is trivial and will hardly affect your understanding of the code. These are all part of a family of languages with C-style syntax.

When I first started programming, people would say the same kind of things for learning some form of assembly. 10 years from now people will probably be making an article like this for Java and C#.

really? with python/ruby/clojure/erlang/lua/js coming up in the world? ... i thought this was going to be a 1991 article.

I feel the most compelling reason to use C++ is that it is one of the de facto programming languages in competitions.

Didn't we do this discussion already when the last C++ article was posted?

Wall Street runs on C++.

If you want to be a master of the machine use C/C++; if you want to be a slave use Java; If you want to be a slave of a slave then its C# for you. Simple :)<p>( Disclaimer : My comments are limited to only the above 'popular' languages in discussion. Also I program purely on *nix, so I am not aware of your other dark or better worlds out there )