With a bit of fiddeling you can use every kind of bracket to basically make function calls in c++
Here are the links to the snippets, all compile and run
Rust: https://godbolt.org/z/bM3d7bG14
cpp and their operator overloads are also insane. It makes understanding cpp code impossible. A "+" could actually do something completely different or have insane side-effects. Truly superior language for spreading confusion.
Funny that you put rust as the "uses parenthesis for function calls". When in rust you can use any bracket for macro invocations:
let v1 = vec!(1,2,3);
let v2 = vec![1,2,3];
let v3 = vec!{1,2,3};
These are valid and have the exact same meaning.
I have honestly never seen parentheses called "round brackets" before. It totally makes sense, I have no idea why it's not used more often.
Ehh, who needs functions anyways, you got one big one and thats your whole codebase.
Good meme, but I'm really not sure why you wrapped everything in asserts which kind of ruins the aesthetics. IMO would have worked better as e.g.:
x = sum(1, 2, 3); // x = 6
I haven't kept up to date with C++ development in the last 16 years, I only recognize the first two of those four.
Weird opinion: I like square brackets, angle brackets are neat, curly braces range from neat to ok.
But I just don't like the look of parentheses compared to the others. They especially look ugly and clunky when you need a bunch of them in a row, in a way that's not true for the others.
I can't think of a reason why I feel this way apart from the fact they tend to be very clunky in math too. They're also the ugliest one when handwritten despite being the arguably simplest shape.
All that said it annoys me how parentheses are the most used bracket type in programming.
No time for arguments, pipelines go brrrr
You can do most if not all of this in Perl if you're twisted enough. Some hoop jumping may be required*, but I can think of ways to do something that looks like each of these.
*: The braces are especially tricky if warnings are turned on. I'd probably abuse the deprecated multidimensional syntax and tie a hash to the actual function.
(best-syntax? '(lisp clojure))
;; => true
I asked the other day in another thread about hating on C++ what makes C++ so bad and never got an answer.
all 42 comments