Live data from Hacker News

Modern C++ Won't Save Us (2019)

alexgaynor.net

91–100 of 266 posts

Re: Modern C++ Won't Save Us (2019)

#91
post #36

Yet C++ is what Google, Facebook, Microsoft and others still use for their most mission critical software.

When you're writing systems software you need systems software engineers and most of them are far more competent in C/C++ than, say, Rust, Ada, Go, etc.

We choose C/C++ because it's what we know and what our colleagues know, but I think a lot of us wish there was a better alternative.

Re: Modern C++ Won't Save Us (2019)

#92
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder, has Bjarne Stroustrup even shipped any industrial-grade software? Because he's mostly an academic AFAIK.

Bjarne Stroustrup is a Director at Morgan-Stanley, a major investment bank in New York where software difficulties may cost millions of dollars per minute. He has described his workday as people coming to him with a difficult software engineering problem, about which he asks increasingly detailed questions until light dawns, and they go away ready to re-write the badly designed subsystem causing the trouble.

Everybody describes their own day like that

Re: Modern C++ Won't Save Us (2019)

#93
post #77

the problem I see with the author's very narrow point of view is that Rust, C++ or C are just tools which can all be misused and produce defects when used improperly or without a good understanding. Rust borrow checker can be implemented in a C++ compiler on a subset of the language which is ironically also what rust does, unsafe parts of Rust well are still unsafe... Already C++ compilers and static analyzers (thank…

Honestly Rust to me feels like a go-ish version of C++ with a modern compiler that has -Wall -Werror enabled by default

Re: Modern C++ Won't Save Us (2019)

#94
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder, has Bjarne Stroustrup even shipped any industrial-grade software? Because he's mostly an academic AFAIK.

Bjarne Stroustrup is a Director at Morgan-Stanley, a major investment bank in New York where software difficulties may cost millions of dollars per minute. He has described his workday as people coming to him with a difficult software engineering problem, about which he asks increasingly detailed questions until light dawns, and they go away ready to re-write the badly designed subsystem causing the trouble.

Often, just the act of explaining your problem to someone results in possible answers. (see Rubber Duck Debugging https://rubberduckdebugging.com)

Re: Modern C++ Won't Save Us (2019)

#95
post #41

Those C++ bad, complex, unsafe etc. etc articles are starting to get boring. If one wants to shoot him/herself in a foot it is fine. C++ offers countless possibilities. It (and plethora of libraries) also offers quick way to write sophisticated and performant applications without much fuss. Make your choice. I personally use C++ to great advantage and find it very productive and safe. And while being good programmer…

[deleted]

Re: Modern C++ Won't Save Us (2019)

#96
post #41

Those C++ bad, complex, unsafe etc. etc articles are starting to get boring. If one wants to shoot him/herself in a foot it is fine. C++ offers countless possibilities. It (and plethora of libraries) also offers quick way to write sophisticated and performant applications without much fuss. Make your choice. I personally use C++ to great advantage and find it very productive and safe. And while being good programmer…

[deleted]

Re: Modern C++ Won't Save Us (2019)

#98
post #36

Yet C++ is what Google, Facebook, Microsoft and others still use for their most mission critical software.

When you're writing systems software you need systems software engineers and most of them are far more competent in C/C++ than, say, Rust, Ada, Go, etc. We choose C/C++ because it's what we know and what our colleagues know, but I think a lot of us wish there was a better alternative.

Not to take away anything from your post, but Go is not a systems language. No language with a mandatory garbage collector can make that claim since it makes some systems code effectively impossible to implement.

Re: Modern C++ Won't Save Us (2019)

#100

I love C++ and I’ve to admit that it will need a subset language soon but the examples given in this article wouldn’t possibly exist in well checked code-bases because you can immediately see usage stinks just by looking at it. I think every C++ is bad article can be summarised like this: 1. C++ has lots of features. 2. Let’s nonsensically combine these features to shoot ourselves on the foot. 3. Uh oh, C++ didn’t he…

I think it is fair to point out that it requires a comparatively high degree of skill and experience to use C++ well relative to many other languages. Most people do not use C++ well because doing so is quite difficult and requires a large investment of time. This is not helped by the fact that it has an enormous amount of legacy baggage that is technically valid code that no one should ever use — there is an entire…

As someone not very acquainted with C++ I was under the impression that the vast standard library was one of the great selling points of the language. What are some examples of defects that force programmers to rewrite parts of it?
Post reply on HN