Join devRant
Do all the things like
++ or -- rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatar
Sign Up
Pipeless API
From the creators of devRant, Pipeless lets you power real-time personalized recommendations and activity feeds using a simple API
Learn More
-
@Vitz
Sure, I agree with you. I won't fault my for using rand() instead of <random> even though it's deprecated.
But C++11 adds a lot of new features that make things simpler. The auto keyword, for instance. for (auto &i: vec) doSomethinWith(i) is simpler then for (int i = 0; i < vec.size(); ++i) doSomethingWith(vec[i]). And so on. There's no reason to teach us the deprecated versions, when the newer ones are simpler and safer.
Stop teaching people deprecated bulls*it.
I'm taking a "Web Design" course and the teacher wants us to use html attributes and the <font> tag to format pages. He doesn't allow us to use CSS. Says "We'll get to CSS later, right now I'm teaching you HTML". He thought us the <frameset> thing which isn't even supported in HTML5. And of course no <header>, <footer>, <aside> etc.
Same thing in my C++ course. The computers don't even have a C++11 (or newer) compiler. Just an old version of Code::Blocks we're not allowed to update. It does support C++0x so you can still get some of the features, but still.
rant
wk92