C++ doesn't have web frameworks, and is big and complicated. If you aren't doing web projects, you can safely stick with a subset(with guidance of course). You mention is not being useful - what is that Python can do that C++ can't? C++ is going to be a bit more verbose, yes, but verbosity is not the only variable. Also, use stl(and/or boost) and your code won't be that verbose. This isn't that bad.
#include <set>
#include <string>
#include <iostream>
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
// Declare and Initialize some variables
std::string word;
std::set<std::string> wordcount;
// Read words and insert in rb-tree
while (std::cin >> word) wordcount.insert(word);
// Print the result
std::cout << "Words: " << wordcount.size() << std::endl;
return 0;
}
It is verbose compared to python, which would do this in about 3 lines. It's also not that great an example because it begs the question why one moment a set of strings ('words' as variable name feels weird to me because I think in c of word boundaries, but whatever) is set<string> (please use 'namespace std') and next moment its char argv. These are obviously simple things to anyone with c++ knowledge, but teaching this to someone is just likely to put them off. There's no reason to use c/c++ today unless you're coding drivers or very performance critical things.
A set isn't necessarily implemented using a red-black tree, most likely its a binary tree of some kind, but why would anyone put that in a comment. It's a set, which just means there's only copy of any repeated 'words'.
I think the reason why c++ doesn't make a good language to teach youngsters is because stl is still a beast of a template library, still spits out garbage error messages and is painful to work with even by the most experienced of developers (25+ c/c++ here)
On the other hand, collections and data structures in python are simple, efficiently implemented and extremely succinct, if the value of a dictionary element contains 2 or 3 elements, or is another dictionary, or a map etc it's simple to do this in python, where as in stl pair<int, int> is great until you need three of them, then its auto_ptr or whatever and it starts to get unwieldy and the poor student trying to focus on the algorithm is now bogged down in the with the inelegance of a low level language.
Don't get me wrong, I love c and c++, but i'd rather teach some python or ruby because they can get stuff done and working and not struggle with tedious syntax.
> It is verbose compared to python, which would do this in about 3 lines.
That can be done as a perl one liner. The C++ program is pretty reasonable as in it matches to the algorithm.
1. Read words.
2. Add words to a set. Set only has unique elements.
3. Print set size which will give you the number of unique words.
> It's also not that great an example because it begs the question why one moment a set of strings ('words' as variable name feels weird to me because I think in c of word boundaries, but whatever) is set<string> (please use 'namespace std') and next moment its char argv.
Questions are good. Questions aid understanding. You are overestimating C++'s complexity and underestimating a 14 year old's abilities.
> There's no reason to use c/c++ today unless you're coding drivers or very performance critical things.
Personally, I think all programmers should have a working knowledge of C or C++. C is the best simulation of the machine. Assembly is closer, but writing assembly is a pain.
> A set isn't necessarily implemented using a red-black tree, most likely its a binary tree of some kind, but why would anyone put that in a comment.
Copied code from the web. Wasn't paying attention. That comment shouldn't be there. A set should be viewed as an ADT and the implementation shouldn't matter.
> I think the reason why c++ doesn't make a good language to teach youngsters is because stl is still a beast of a template library, still spits out garbage error messages and is painful to work with even by the most experienced of developers (25+ c/c++ here)
STL is a beast, yes, but you don't have to know the whole of it. Regarding error messages, I find clang's error messages better.
> Don't get me wrong, I love c and c++, but i'd rather teach some python or ruby because they can get stuff done and working and not struggle with tedious syntax.
I would teach Python as well. I was taking exception to the knee jerk reaction to C++.
I meant "not as useful" as "not as efficient". Of course you could do everything you could do in Python (or whatever) in C++, since Python is basically a subset of C++ (I assume Python is written in C/C++).
It just seems weird to make beginners start with a complicated tool when there are easier tools that can get the same results.
C++ doesn't have web frameworks, and is big and complicated. If you aren't doing web projects, you can safely stick with a subset(with guidance of course). You mention is not being useful - what is that Python can do that C++ can't? C++ is going to be a bit more verbose, yes, but verbosity is not the only variable. Also, use stl(and/or boost) and your code won't be that verbose. This isn't that bad.