Thread: Is c++ Inherently Broken ?

Code:

namespace util
  {
  void print_array(int array[])
    {
    int count = sizeof( array ) / sizeof( array[0] );
    for (int i = 0; i <= count; i++) cout << array[i];
    }
  }
class Util
  {
  public:
    static void print_array(int array[])
      {
      int count = sizeof(array);
      for (int i = 0; i <= count; i++) cout << array[i];
      }
  };


util::print_array()  // Namespace
Util::print_array()  // Class

C++ - Namespace vs. Static Functions - Stack Overflow


Consider the example above from stackoverflow.

The static method is called from a class, similar to that of a namespace.
They are both valid when called although namespace is frowned upon because it is an extra language feature,
but the fundamental question is, which is which ?
The second question is, what to use ?

Furthermore, the static keyword in c hides the method; the method cannot be used outside that header, in that sense, a one-dimensional c programmer would be confused ?

Is c++ Inherently Broken ?

The correct word would be flawed.

If you use namespaces, you will frequently hit a language defect that functions which call each other must be listed in a specific order, because C++ can't see definitions further down in the file.


If you use classes, this defect does not occur.


It can be easier and cleaner to wrap implementation functions in a class than to maintain declarations for them all or put them in an unnatural order to make it compile.

Also refer to :
c++ - Namespace + functions versus static methods on a class - Stack Overflow

The post is not untrue, I have reviewed code where there is an excessive use of namespace and the whole thing ends up messy.

You are mistaken: the use of a namespace is not "frowned upon because it is an extra language feature". In fact, for grouping a bunch of functions so loosely related that their group name is "util" or "Util", a namespace would be more appropriate than a class of static non-member functions. This answers your question of "what to use ?" for this case.

Actually the idea is to use basic syntax and not overuse the additional features that comes with every new c++ standards, there are certain projects that are hard to read and almost illegible for that reason. I incorrectly assumed that there could be some general rules that may require these features.

It can be easier and cleaner to wrap implementation functions in a class than to maintain declarations for them all or put them in an unnatural order to make it compile.

But why would you put functions in a namespace if they're not shared with other source files? (That is, if they're all static (file-local) functions then why do they need to be in a namespace?)

And if they are shared with other source files, then why wouldn't you put declarations for all functions in a header file? And even if they're not in a namespace you would run into the same issue with regard to using a function before it's declared. So namespaces are not the real issue here.

Edit: I missed the "implementation functions" part, but my previous logic still applies re: using a function before it's declared, whether it's in a namespace or not.

Originally Posted by upload

I have reviewed code where there is an excessive use of namespace and the whole thing ends up messy.

Sure, excessive use of any language feature can make code messy.

Originally Posted by upload

Actually the idea is to use basic syntax and not overuse the additional features that comes with every new c++ standards,

Namespaces were added to C++ in 1995. That was 28 years ago. That's the year Windows 95 came out. Movies like Toy Story and Apollo 13 came out that year too. Mac OS X hadn't come out yet. Let that sink in. 28 years is an eternity in computer time and far more than long enough to get used to a "new" or "additional" language feature.

And the idea of using only the "basic syntax" of C++ sounds like a "one-dimensional C programmer" who can't understand the purpose of namespaces and what sort of problems they solve.

Originally Posted by upload

there are certain projects that are hard to read and almost illegible for that reason.

Sure, blame the tool rather than the programmers who overuse it. See also "excessive use of any language feature can make code messy".

Methinks you have a grudge against a language feature you don't quite understand (a feature that's been a part of the language since perhaps before most programmers in the workforce were even born, and almost surely before most programmers started learning the language) and want to blame it for poor programming practices.

Methinks you have a grudge against a language feature

That's a wild assumption, that's like me thinking that you are a hardline liberal hooked on that kool-aid, who feels stuck in a red state and who remembers only Toy story and Apollo13.

Ramblings aside, I could care less about language or features, at some point in time I will be done with this whole thing.

Originally Posted by upload

I could care less about language or features

Clearly you could care less as you do care at least a little about them. (If you cared not a whit about them then that means you couldn't care less about them, and you wouldn't be posting about them in the first place.)

What is the point of this thread anyway, besides rambling about a basic language feature that's been part of the language from practically the beginning, one that you don't really understand but want to complain about for some reason? Do you have an actual question?

(C++ had existed for 16 years by the time namespaces were added, but it's now been 28 years since namespaces were added, so they were added closer to the beginning than to today, so I think it's fair to say they've been part of the language from "practically the beginning".)

complain about for some reason?

Believe what you want to believe.

judgement on the use of tools).

I don't understand why you have to pull a judgement card, what if I tell you that the whole idea of namespace is flawed and that it is you who have poor judgement.

Would you conclude then that pointers in C should not be used ?

Now you are pulling my leg, that's no different to someone who takes a wild guess, and who assumes that you are a pro-choice apologist who screams, "all lives matter" ?

By your logic, because excessive use of namespaces makes code messy, namespaces shouldn't be used (or is a flawed concept). Am I correct so far?


If we applied the same logic to pointers, we could conclude that pointers shouldn't be used either.


You can apply the same logic to many other useful language features:


Function pointers
return statements
Classes
Conditional operator
Function parameters
Nested loops
Recursion
Variables
Parentheses
Whitespace
Etc.




Should we say the whole idea of function pointers is flawed? Should we get rid of the "return" statement? Are classes flawed too? And let's not forget that flawed conditional operator!


I hope you can see the silliness of that logic.

That's your logic.

Java also has namespaces.

Packages in Java and namespaces in C++ are two different things.


With logic like yours, maybe you could explain to us why liberals dye their hair green, pink and violet ?

Originally Posted by upload

Packages in Java and namespaces in C++ are two different things.

Packages in Java and the namespace keyword in C++ both implement the "idea" of namespaces, which you implied is flawed:

Originally Posted by upload

what if I tell you that the whole idea of namespace is flawed

Or do you mean something else?

If you only mean that "namespace" in C++ is flawed, then why is it flawed yet packages in Java are not flawed? They're really not that much different except in syntax (Java has a line like "package foo;", while C++ has "namespace foo" with the contents inside braces).

But in any case, how is it flawed?

But in any case, how is it flawed?

How about using a regular class.

Why eat soy food when you can eat ground beef and drink logger life ?
Libtardism I guess..