this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2026
-1 points (49.5% liked)
Programming
26579 readers
161 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm all for humourous roasts of things, but does anyone really find this funny? Was the author possibly being serious? I don't know. What I do know is that I stopped watching after the first four examples because they were all deliberately incorrect or misleading, but also didn't seem funny to me.
That sure is a lot of ways to initialize a variable! Even though some of these variables are quite different and would be initialized differently from each other in many other languages, even only counting the initializations that are functionally equivalent, there are a bunch of abuses of syntax that I've never seen used in the wild.
At this point I had hope that this was meant to be amusing.
C++ has had a version of C's printf function from the very beginning. That weird stream syntax has some hardcore fans but many people ignore it. I did my CS degree close to 30 years ago, and the only time I used stream syntax was for one lab class exercise in which we had to show that we understood how to use stream syntax.
They still could be going for a comedy roast, I guess.
Much like the printf statement for number 2 above, C++ had its own version of C's rand function from the start. I've never even heard of the stuff that's being shown in this part of the video.
OK that was virtually the same fake point as the previous one, and still no punchlines in sight.
Nope, you don't. You're free to ask the compiler to automagically recast your variables to another type without giving any further detail just like you can in C. In fact, they're often called "C-style casts". There are even implicit casts, where you literally don't add anything, and just cross your fingers that the compiler does what you think it should do. It's like a little bit of the thrill of dynamic typing brought into C++! By using the static_cast keyword, you can tell the compiler that you understand that there's a potential issue with this recast, but that you expect that the standard way of handling it will be fine. There are other keywords for more unusual situations; it's not just a random bit of busywork added for no reason.
I don't think it was a comedy roast, more like a rant.
The core message of the video (and I do agree with that) is that C++ is incredibly cluttered and that there are dozens of ways to do the same simple thing.
And sure, you don't need to know them all when writing code, but when reading someone else's code you need to know all of the options to understand it.
Initialization in C++ is so simple that somebody wrote a nearly 300-page book on the subject: https://www.cppstories.com/2023/init-story-print/
I plan to read it after finishing this 260 page book on move schematics in C++: https://www.cppmove.com/
There's a book about 101 ways to cut potatoes. Perhaps that could be a real mike-drop bit of evidence that we shouldn't be cooking potatoes.
Here's a 249-page book "just" about atomics and locks in Rust. Does a book this large about only one aspect of Rust prove that it's a terrible language? No, because as with the C++ book, if we look at the summary of contents we can see that it actually covers a great deal more, simply with a focus on those topics.
Luckily we don't have to be compete masters of every aspect of a language in order to use it.
Honestly, I think that modern C++ is a very piecemeal language with no clear direction, and it has many issues because of that. But the title and page count of a single book is not a convincing argument of anything.
If that book was about a million ways of how to just use atomics in Rust, then yes, that would be potentially bad. But SURPRISE SURPRISE, it's not. As you can see for yourself.
Not sure what you were getting at there. Even hard C++ copers don't attempt to argue against the fact that C++ is huge, and not only that, it's the biggest language around by an easy margin (this can be roughly and superficially measured by comparing spec sizes).
It's not the size, but rather everything on top of it, and contributing to it, from general incoherence to bad design to countless misfeatures, that require non-trivial argumentation.
Your comment seems to be trying to disagree with me, but I think you wrote almost the same things that I wrote in the comment that you're replying to:
Or you are a masochist and just used to the abuse.
The video isn't humorous, it's dead serious. C++ is terrible language.
I think the video is intended to criticize what is modern C++. From what I've heard, at least a large crowd of the modern C++ movement considers the C APIs outdated and is of the opinion you're meant to use the C++ ones. Seen from that angle, many of the examples in the video make more sense.