51–60 of 124 posts
I just checked how many times I use explicit delete in my moderately sized 7K LOC C++ project: just once. In code that interfaces with an old library. Modern C++ is not only practical. It's easy.
You using smart pointers from C++11 or later?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just curious: why did you choose C++ instead of C for embedded? Most shops I know chose C just because of code bloat.
I have to admit, that C++ is still not the industry "Go-To" language for embedded. But if you apply modern C++ correctly, there is very few overhead compared to C and the software is much easier to maintain. The performance of embedded MCU's are continuously rising over the years and that little overhead is buying development speed. Not to mention smart pointers, templates and constexpr making my life easier. The onl…
std::array is in there since C++ 11 and it doesn’t use heap.
And/or you can use STL with custom allocators that work without heap. We did something similar developing for Nintendo Wii console. There was a heap but we didn’t want to use it to avoid memory fragmentation. AFAIR we used two arenas (essentially stacks), one very small for temporary data cleaned up at the start of each frame, and a large one cleaned up when a level is unloaded.
However, I don’t have hands on experience developing firmware for medical devices, so I’m not sure it’ll work for them.
Can I cheaply "pattern match" on variant type without involving exceptions or dynamic cast etc?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just curious: why did you choose C++ instead of C for embedded? Most shops I know chose C just because of code bloat.
Modern C++ compilers do pretty well on a Commodore 64, let alone many of the typical embedded deployments outside pico-controllers. CppCon 2016: Jason Turner “Rich Code for Tiny Computers: A Simple Commodore 64 Game in C++17” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBkNBP00wJE Most of the time is either religion against C++ or lack of modern tooling, given that most embedded toolchains are stuck with C90 and C++98.
possibly. but given the how often i've seen c++ users treat c users like idiot savages or heathens that need conversion ("have you heard the good word of our lord and savior, c++?"), i could understand a negative sentiment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If somebody else owns it and you're working on the whole string `const std::string&` is probably your best bet Actually string_view is more general. You can build one out of a string literal, a vector , some memory from a memmap call, and an unbounded list of other things. If an interface uses a `const std::string&` and you don't have one, you have to, implicitly or explicitly, copy the data into a `std::string` to…
Is it just me, or does it seem like std::string_view is just an alternative in semantics to a `char *` plus a size? It doesn't null-terminate (which would require copying or mutating). Is there some extra safety checking this provides?
But the real benefit is in providing it as a "vocabulary type". Once C++ code starts using string_view everywhere, you don't need to massage your char sequences this way and that [1] to pass it from the top of your application all the way down into the low-level libraries the application relies on. And you don't incur the overhead (both in lines of code and in copies) of all that massaging.
[1] Maybe your request handler has to convert from char* and size to a string to call your business logic, then your string has to convert from a string to a char pointer and and int length to call saveName. saveName might actually use std::copy under the hood to put the data into a chunk of memory, so it turns the pointer and length into two pointers.
I just finished my third semester of using C++ (with Data structures 1) and we use NO modern stuff in class [1]. Raw pointers. New and delete. No Lambdas (although we learned about function pointers, though not function objects). I completely understand why (we're learning low level stuff and it's worked for the last 30 years so whatever), but now I'm trying to ramp up and learn modern C++ for a personal project I'd like to start working on (basically an audio plugin using JUCE).
Here's what I've been doing to try and catch up (I have two weeks off before my internship starts). I try to watch Bjarne and Herb's keynotes but they often are speaking to an audience already familiar to modern C++, so this posts video is great! I've discovered the brilliance of Sean Parent, so I'm watching all of his talks. I've ordered Scott Meyers Effective Modern C++ (and hopefully he uses the money for a new haircut /s). I've browsed through the C++ Core Guidelines [2]. I'm reading the JUCE tutorials (and source code) which is beautifully written.
What are other good resources? I'm particularly interested in developing GUI's. I'd like to see some tutorials written like Herbs talk here: for people new to C++ and new to modern C++.
[1] This is our textbook: https://www.amazon.com/Programming-Program-Design-Including-...
[2] http://isocpp.github.io/CppCoreGuidelines/CppCoreGuidelines#...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven't tried c++17 year, but c++98->c++11 did bring about code bloat. However even though we were building the same code base for two different systems, one without a C++11 compiler (thus we could not use c++11 features): it is incorrect to say we were not using C++11. Just turning on C++11 in the compiler brings move to all standard library containers. The header files were not just "somehow" linked in and not us…
What do you mean by code bloat?
::Somewhat tangential anecdote and plea for advice:: I just finished my third semester of using C++ (with Data structures 1) and we use NO modern stuff in class [1]. Raw pointers. New and delete. No Lambdas (although we learned about function pointers, though not function objects). I completely understand why (we're learning low level stuff and it's worked for the last 30 years so whatever), but now I'm trying to ram…
Are you sure it's not just because your teachers are not (enough) aware of those new features ? Because I work in a University and know way too many colleagues that still use new/delete on a daily basis.
::Somewhat tangential anecdote and plea for advice:: I just finished my third semester of using C++ (with Data structures 1) and we use NO modern stuff in class [1]. Raw pointers. New and delete. No Lambdas (although we learned about function pointers, though not function objects). I completely understand why (we're learning low level stuff and it's worked for the last 30 years so whatever), but now I'm trying to ram…