Reaching Satori Through C++

At some level of craftsmanship the only way to reach higher heights is to use C++.

http://ai.neocities.org/FirstWorkingAGI.html

>>1
Functional Sepples?

>>3
Yes, among other freedom to make the perfect program design.

>>4
The problem is you have to either:
1.Use the latest std::lib functionality(cringy, bolted-on sepples anachronisms) and hope it won't break(Spoiler:It will).
2.Write your own macro/template/constexpr stack that emulates half of lisp. Now consider:
Constexprs are crippled compared to D.
Macros are crippled compared to Rust.
Templates are slow and ancient shit that barely works.
Lambdas are crippled compared to any other language.
C++20 has barely enough stuff to be considered high-level and its libraries are built on ancient template metaprogramming/abuse/black magic that isn't debugabble by anyone sane.

>>5
If you want to reach the best performance and have control to the lowest level you'll have to use sepples.
There are no restrictions. You can do anything and anything is written in it.

>>6
you misspelled 'assembly'

If you want to reach the best performance and have control to the lowest level you'll have to use forth.
There are no restrictions. You can do anything and anything is written in it.

>>8
you misspelled 'VHDL'

>>6
I don't argue against that, i point out this functional sepples is quite hard to debug and extend. It feels as bolted-on afterthought and isn't really stable with each new C++ standard redefining cutting-edge stuff(i.e. functional code).

C++ does not exist.

What if I prefer C?

>>9
No, I did not. There are tools to generate fpga code via forth.

>>5
All of those complaints are side effects of being a language that people actually use in the real world (as opposed academic ivory tower bullshittery). Things that serve a purpose accumulate cruft. Yes, backward compatibility means there are a lot of gotchas and bad features. C++ was successful enough to spawn new versions, which had to keep backward compatibility with the worse versions. Rust and D will not be remembered in 15 years, let alone have a new standard that would create redundant backward compatible features.

Read this
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/06/18/bjarne_stroustrup_c_plus_plus/