No, but it's relatively complex, more so than most people can handle.

>>51409848

Nah.

>>51409848
Why don't you try it and see for yourself.

But to answer your question in a non-bitchy way, no. Its just fine. People just think its hard because of pointers and flexibility. It was my first language and it was very very good for me.

http://yosefk.com/c++fqa/

Read it all. Meditate on it. Become enlightened.

Now fuck off.

C++ dickriders will call you names for questioning their language. C++ haters will tell you it is literally satan.

Here's the truth about C++: It's just okay. Like most languages, it is good at certain things and bad at others, and has its quirks that you need to work through.

>>51409848
Yeah, PASCAL is hundred times better.

No. It's that good. It's the best thing we have given its evolution. I prefer Scheme to C++ if I had the choice.

>>51409848
It's the only language that gives you as much control over the machine while at the same time letting you use modern constructs such as OOP, functional, and generic programming.

As a result though, it is a quite complicated language. Its main flaw is that it's syntax is constrained by the backward compatibility with C.

>>51410967
>C++ builder
WHAT YEAR IS IT? 2001?

>>51409923
>because of pointers
You should use smart pointers anyway. But yeah, one has to learn pointers first.

>“Coming from a background in C/C++, I find Go to be a real breath of fresh air. At this point, I think it would be a far better choice than C++ for doing systems programming because it will be much more productive and it solves problems that would be notably more difficult in C++. This is not to say that I think C++ was a mistake -- on the contrary, I think it was inevitable. At the time, we were deeply mired in the C mindset, slightly above assembly language and convinced that any language construct that generated significant code or overhead was impractical. Things like garbage collection or language support for parallelism were downright ridiculous and no one took them seriously. C++ took the first baby steps necessary to drag us into this larger world, and Stroustrup made the right choices in making C++ comprehensible to the C programmer, and able to compile C. We needed that at the time.
>We’ve had many lessons since then. Things like garbage collection and exception handling and virtual machines, which used to be crazy talk, are now accepted without question. The complexity of C++ (even more complexity has been added in the new C++), and the resulting impact on productivity, is no longer justified. All the hoops that the C++ programmer had to jump through in order to use a C-compatible language make no sense anymore -- they’re just a waste of time and effort. Now, Go makes much more sense for the class of problems that C++ was originally intended to solve.”
-Bruce Eckel: author of "Thinking in C++", the undisputed best book on C++ 10 to 15 years ago

Are these C++ problems only real problems in huge development teams?

I don't get it (I'm a programming noob), they say all programming languages can do anything. C++ is used for important stuff, it has the libraries to do important stuff, why complain? Is it just haskell / lisp worshippers who dislike it?

>>51412848
It's probably the C turboprogrammers who gotta go fast. They can't tolerate the syntax overhead of C++.

>>51412885

what is the alternative? Java? C#? I just want to make my own vidya

>>51412955
You can write games in C. Start with C because it's a nice small language. If you're not afraid of a bigger learning burden, you can learn the Java language and use a Java game engine.

>>51412955
Python then C are probably good first languages. Controls, graphics and sound can be done through SDL or SFML (the C version).

Not bad, just a pain to debug, and requires more work to manage memory and smooth things out.

Pretty quickly becoming overshadowed in all but specialized niches though, because hardware has improved tremendously and gotten cheaper, along with things like JIT compliers.

Properly optimized C++ still gives the best performance, but it requires a skilled programmer, and man hours to properly optimize.

The JVM matches or exceeds C++ in some benchmarks now, so you'll see the role of C/C++ shrink and specialize even more in the coming years.

>>51413348

To add to this, it is much easier to write good performance, easy to debug, and maintainable Java than it is to write, debug, and maintain the better performing C++.

In all but the narrowest of instances, the reasons to trend away from C++ out weigh the reasons to gravitate toward it.

>>51410699
is there a good chart saying the pros and cons for most well-known languages?