Talk:C++

removal of the statement, that certain infamous companies and/or people have problems with C++ exception handling

The statement, that there are (still) companies and/or people, with an aversion against C++ exception handling should be removed.

Usage of C++ without exception handling always meant obfuscation due to multi-step initialization and/or acceptance of a crash/abort in case of error.

After a quarter century (1996) of successful exploitation, there is no need to dignify such inaptitude any longer -- if it was ever justified! 139.181.7.34 (talk) 22:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

External Links - Add link to tutorial for C++

How about adding this link https://www.learncpp.com/ to the External Links section for readers to learn how to program in C++? I am learning from it myself and it is a very good resource, I like it alot better than others I have tried, including but not limited to: CodeAcademy, Programiz, w3schools, Microsoft Docs, FreeCodeCamp, and Udemy. 172.56.80.69 (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

It fails on external link guidelines TEDickey (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

C++ is not general purpose or high level.

C++ has system facilities. Any language with low-level facilities should not be use for general-purpose programming. It bakes in dependencies, results in lock in (which C does), and also results in inflexibility.

C++ also has many primitive facilities like pointers and defines which really have no place in general-purpose programming.

Like C based its syntax on BCPL which was a structured language from ALGOL, just adopting structured syntax does not make a language high-level.

C++ adopted objects and inheritance from Simula, but same thing, except in C++ it was a semblance of OO, but in syntax, not in spirit. Other facilities like multiple inheritance and templates (primitive generics) were added from elsewhere.

C++ really should be limited to legacy system software. Ian.joyner (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

 Disagree while it provides low-level facilities, C++ allows the developer to choose the level of abstraction they desire. Lightbloom (talk) 02:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@Lightbloom I think there should be some mention of this somewhere. It seems to be both high and low level. Panamitsu (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

It does already mention in the lead that it provides low-level facilities. If you believe this should be more prominent I have no opinion one way or the other. Lightbloom (talk) 02:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

are you a rustard ? StrikrIO (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

On C++ being high-level

@Vupini: While the terms high-level and low-level language are relative, I think that C++ has enough abstraction to be called high level. If you disagree, you should find some WP:RS that call C++ low level and then make the change. Nickps (talk) 11:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

C++23 Hello World

Hi, I would like to add the C++23 version of the hello world program below the old school hello C++ hello world program. I suggest adding this sentence below the hellow world example:

With the C++23 standard also comes a new modern Hello world program. Dc coder 84 (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

For some context, see the discussion in my talk page. I think that a case can be made for adding this program to the article. The only concern I have is that it might be early since C++23 has not been released yet. Nickps (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

We do not need two examples. And we should continue to use Stroustrup's version (which is widely replicated in many books and articles) unless and until a C++23 version supplants it as the widely used version. I would expect that to take at least a few years, especially since many compilers and systems don't fully support the new standard. MrOllie (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure we don't need it strictly speaking but one could argue that it is an interesting read for readers even if compilers don't support it yet. Dc coder 84 (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Let me clarify: Duplication would be unhelpful. We should not include the proposed sample. One could argue that 'it is an interesting read' but that would not be a convincing argument, since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information one finds interesting. MrOllie (talk) 23:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)