Re: is C++ worth it ?
On Monday, July 30, 2012 7:59:44 PM UTC+1, Stuart wrote:
On 7/30/12 Jorgen Grahn wrote:
Wait a minute -- you say the MS compiler works as you want;
I say gcc does on Linux ... where *do* you see the problem?
I thought gcc did not turn Access Violations into exceptions.
AFAIK, this is a unique feature of the MS compilers. However,
I would very much like to be proven wrong.
This error is unique to MS compilers I think (and I think it's
optional there). With g++ under Linux (and all other Unix
compilers, I think), and access violation results in a core
dump, which is far preferrable for most applications.
And to come back to backtraces in exceptions: Why not
standardize it "optionally", so that if the platform provides
this feature, it can be used in a standard way?
The reason C++ doesn't have backtraces in exceptions is that
that's not what exceptions are for. Exceptions are designed to
be caught, so any backtrace would be ignored. If you have a
programming error, you want to stop immediately (in most
applications, anyway). Violently, and with a backtrace. In the
core file, or its equivalent---your client can't do anything
with a backtrace, but he can send you a core dump, so that you
can do something. (And of course, if the core dump isn't in
your test cases, you're not testing sufficiently.)
--
James