C++11 FAQ
stroustrup.com
C++11 FAQ
1–10 of 121 posts
Re: C++11 FAQ
#2Good stuff, I can also heartily recommend Scott Meyer's Effective Modern C++ book which covers idiosyncrasies and some unexpected behaviour (at least to me).
Also Stroustrup's 4th edition of The C++ Programming Language is invaluable, if not just for the more-readable sans-serif font compared to the 3rd edition! And of course the coverage of all C++11 changes in it...
I can also recommend the Overload journal for interesting C++ articles (https://accu.org/index.php/journals/c78/)
And cppcon videos on YouTube - there's a wealth of info there, free.
Also the ISO CPP FAQ (which I think supersedes Stroustrup's?): https://isocpp.org/faq
Re: C++11 FAQ
#3I've been programming for money for over 20 years and I grew up professionally writing C and then half-migrating to C++, because the latter very naturally captured lots of C patterns and allowed for more succinct expression of the same. It was lean, expressive and elegant. Just needed a bit of Lisp-y closures and it would've been perfect.
And then things got completely out of hand. Elegance was nuked from the high orbit in favor of "power features" and abstraction. Fucking Boost (I can't tone it down, sorry), move semantics, ass-backwards closures, meta-template programming - C++ that was easy to understand became something that would normally come out of self-indulgent academic research.
Again, I've been using C/C++ for all my professional life, so it pains me to say this, but what it has become, it's... it's just horrible. Anything - C, D, Python, Rust - is cleaner and more elegant than C++ and just as powerful. If nothing else, I feel sorry for Bjarne. What could've been a gem of programming languages became http://i.imgur.com/1oGHYqi.jpg
Re: C++11 FAQ
#4I've been programming for money for over 20 years and I grew up professionally writing C and then half-migrating to C++, because the latter very naturally captured lots of C patterns and allowed for more succinct expression of the same. It was lean, expressive and elegant . Just needed a bit of Lisp-y closures and it would've been perfect. And then things got completely out of hand. Elegance was nuked from the high o…
some of the pain points you refer to, esp move semantics, bring a lot of additional performance to the table. Would you feel the same way about C++ if you started now and only had to learn a clean C++11 subset going forward ?
Re: C++11 FAQ
#5I've been programming for money for over 20 years and I grew up professionally writing C and then half-migrating to C++, because the latter very naturally captured lots of C patterns and allowed for more succinct expression of the same. It was lean, expressive and elegant . Just needed a bit of Lisp-y closures and it would've been perfect. And then things got completely out of hand. Elegance was nuked from the high o…
[deleted]
Re: C++11 FAQ
#6I've been programming for money for over 20 years and I grew up professionally writing C and then half-migrating to C++, because the latter very naturally captured lots of C patterns and allowed for more succinct expression of the same. It was lean, expressive and elegant . Just needed a bit of Lisp-y closures and it would've been perfect. And then things got completely out of hand. Elegance was nuked from the high o…
> move semantics
Move semantics have been great, in my experience (enabling things like unique_ptr). What is causing issues here?
Re: C++11 FAQ
#7I've been programming for money for over 20 years and I grew up professionally writing C and then half-migrating to C++, because the latter very naturally captured lots of C patterns and allowed for more succinct expression of the same. It was lean, expressive and elegant . Just needed a bit of Lisp-y closures and it would've been perfect. And then things got completely out of hand. Elegance was nuked from the high o…
some of the pain points you refer to, esp move semantics, bring a lot of additional performance to the table. Would you feel the same way about C++ if you started now and only had to learn a clean C++11 subset going forward ?
I've often wondered how anybody manages to teach C++ today. I love working with the language, and I understand the reason behind many of the features, but I can't help but feel like it would be impossible to teach to beginners.
Re: C++11 FAQ
#8I've been programming for money for over 20 years and I grew up professionally writing C and then half-migrating to C++, because the latter very naturally captured lots of C patterns and allowed for more succinct expression of the same. It was lean, expressive and elegant . Just needed a bit of Lisp-y closures and it would've been perfect. And then things got completely out of hand. Elegance was nuked from the high o…
> move semantics Move semantics have been great, in my experience (enabling things like unique_ptr). What is causing issues here?
Move semantics are very useful, but there's also something wrong if articles like this are necessary or even possible:
https://isocpp.org/blog/2012/11/universal-references-in-c11-...
Re: C++11 FAQ
#9I've been programming for money for over 20 years and I grew up professionally writing C and then half-migrating to C++, because the latter very naturally captured lots of C patterns and allowed for more succinct expression of the same. It was lean, expressive and elegant . Just needed a bit of Lisp-y closures and it would've been perfect. And then things got completely out of hand. Elegance was nuked from the high o…
What you paint as a fault might be an asset: C++ is multi-paradigm. There is more than one way to look at something and there is a joyous chaos of varied abstractions from which to choose from.
Yes it takes a certain openness of mind and a long learning curve. But then, you get to operate at a level that other platforms can only dream.
In full disclosure, I do NOT consider myself a good C++ programmer. But I've always respected the fact that it's one environment which fosters using the whole toolbox instead of just a hammer... no matter how elegant that hammer may be. In that respect, it reminds me a lot of Perl.
Re: C++11 FAQ
#10I've been programming for money for over 20 years and I grew up professionally writing C and then half-migrating to C++, because the latter very naturally captured lots of C patterns and allowed for more succinct expression of the same. It was lean, expressive and elegant . Just needed a bit of Lisp-y closures and it would've been perfect. And then things got completely out of hand. Elegance was nuked from the high o…
Interesting that you mention Rust... I am one of those "modern C++" kinds and I am quite curious and excited about Rust (haven't quite jumped boat yet though). I feel that there are quite a few others in such position.
And precisely the reason we like Rust is because it is like the new C++ (moves, lean lambdas, templates, on-the-stack values, borrowing) without so much of the old stuff. What do you think? What do you expect from Rust?