91–100 of 238 posts
My codebase uses a fairly dumbed down version of C++, but I would have liked to see more depth in this post. As it is, it is not very useful. There are many more things to avoid than just iostream. HFT university has a good recap: https://hftuniversity.com/post/the-c-standard-library-has-be... The point on exceptions I think is also misleading. Compilers typically make throwing an exception the expensive part, and th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trust me, I know more C++ than most or all of my peers (working two jobs simultaneously), and I know a million ways that C++ features suck. Also standard library and containers. If you want I'll point out the ways in which std::deque, and even std::map, std::unordered_map, even std::vector (!) suck. IMO, just don't do it.
and even std::map, std::unordered_map, even std::vector (!) suck It's really hard to take your comment serious because of generalization like this. Maybe they're not usable for your particular usecase but that doesn't mean they suck. Just like there's a 'million' ways that C++ sucks in your book, there's a reason there's millions of lines of code out there where these containers are valid usecases and hence work with…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
and even std::map, std::unordered_map, even std::vector (!) suck It's really hard to take your comment serious because of generalization like this. Maybe they're not usable for your particular usecase but that doesn't mean they suck. Just like there's a 'million' ways that C++ sucks in your book, there's a reason there's millions of lines of code out there where these containers are valid usecases and hence work with…
They're not useable for anything serious, i.e. high throughput, low frequency, massively concurrent work. In other words, most of the things for which you shouldn't better have chosen a different language in the first place. They're also unusable by the way because of ergonomic and software architecture factors, such as bad modularity, terrible compile times, unreadable error messages, unreadable symbol names... Yes…
Why is only 'high throughput, low frequency, massively concurrent work' considered 'serious'?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of us are too busy solving problems. Learning about the latest language features, which we often won't be able to use anyway due to the trouble of moving a large dev environment to a newer standard, feels like academic masturbation. C++ folks are very much into their language, and can't seem to understand that most folks don't want to dedicate significant amounts of mental resources purely to language details.
Like implementing the compilers used by C devs.
You can take for (auto const & ess : esses) { ... } from my cold dead hands. Also, you can fight me if you want to take dynamic_cast (base_ptr) and force me to implement my own typing system every time I need to upcast. Basically, stick with C and leave C++ programmers alone. I haven't seen a less useful article about C++ in a long time, and as an HN reader, that's really saying something.
The problem with this is that whoever is reading the code as-is does not know what type "ess" is. Sometimes you get the definition somewhere nearby, in which case it is probably fine - assuming it is close enough that it'll be included in a diff - but more often than not you don't know.
Yes, an IDE can probably tell you (probably, depends on the IDE and assuming everyone uses one) but even that requires some extra action like moving the mouse over the definition and hoping it'll give you something. However this wont show up in diffs, PRs, code reviews, etc.
IMO `auto` is one of those C++ features that really needs discipline to use - and when in doubt, i'd rather ban its use (except where you cannot do otherwise) than rely on everyone doing the right thing.
You can take for (auto const & ess : esses) { ... } from my cold dead hands. Also, you can fight me if you want to take dynamic_cast (base_ptr) and force me to implement my own typing system every time I need to upcast. Basically, stick with C and leave C++ programmers alone. I haven't seen a less useful article about C++ in a long time, and as an HN reader, that's really saying something.
One thing I've noticed about a lot of these "strict C" developers is that quite often they actually refuse to learn C++. One of the most common complaints of C developers regarding C++ is "it does things behind the scenes/performs magic", often with regards to operator overloading. When they refuse to actually look at the implementation (y'know you can check if an operator has been overloaded) AND they refuse to ackn…
If you're in a market that requires using C++, many of these decisions are made for you by the platform above you, and you're screwed. Turn on RTTI, build a fort to deflect the random exceptions they'll throw at you, and may the gods allow you to recoup your R&D before some well-intentioned yokel in some media or game vertical changes everything and requires you to change everything. On the other hand, if you control…
Do you mean this as an appeal to Google being the home to great talent, or more as an endorsement of the specific guidance provided by this specific style guide, Google or no?
Because if the former, I think I do almost everything better in my context than Google would. It would be hard not to considering the difference in organizational scale.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like implementing the compilers used by C devs.
GCC was implemented in C and there are plenty of other C compilers written in C. GCC has been converted to C++ at some point, but large parts are still essentially C and I do not think the change to C++ was actually helpful (but others may disagree). In any case, the idea that one needs C++ to have C compilers is certainly simply wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> build a fort to deflect the random exceptions they'll throw at you Sounds like you hate exceptions, right? In which case why do you handle them at all? Just leave them all unhandled and suddenly every exception is a crash. Which is really no different from someone choosing to terminate. Which you have to worry about even without exceptions. > if you have a C++ code base yet somehow have enough time and energy to wr…
> Which is really no different from someone choosing to terminate. If you std::abort(), you'll get a useful stack trace in the core dump. If you crash from an unhandled exception, you don't. That's a pretty huge difference and is one of the reasons exceptions suck.
All of this is up to the implementation in practice. The codebases I work on generally follow the pattern that exceptions may be thrown but may not be caught*, and thus they practically serve as terminate. And we absolutely get stack traces in our core dumps (Linux, both GCC and clang), and basically all of the complex debugging I do starts with a coredump stacktrace.
* We follow this pattern for a few reasons, (1) it is generally safer for us to assume that libraries we consume (STL included) will behave as expected with exceptions enabled, (2) "don't catch exceptions" (or if you must, catch the as close-to-throw as possible) is a simple way to avoid exceptions-for-nonexceptional-cases control flow, and (3) most of the C++ codebase is exposed through bindings in Python, and propagating errors as exceptions is the only Python-friendly way to handle it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like implementing the compilers used by C devs.
GCC was implemented in C and there are plenty of other C compilers written in C. GCC has been converted to C++ at some point, but large parts are still essentially C and I do not think the change to C++ was actually helpful (but others may disagree). In any case, the idea that one needs C++ to have C compilers is certainly simply wrong.
With time, the GCC developers acknowledged the benefits of using C++ over C, and migrated the code.
GCC requires a C++ compiler to bootstrap since around 2012, and GNU coding standards has been updated to several languages beyond C, time to go up with times.