Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We have C++14

isocpp.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 353 posts

Re: We have C++14

#191

Post by pcwalton »

microtonal wrote: post #182
CountSessine wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ecosystem really is the whole problem, though. You can never make it big without having lots of friends. Rust is a pretty cool language, but I can't help being reminded about another very well-designed but ultimately unsuccessful C++ challenger, D. The parallels are really hard to ignore. D, like Rust, had great syntax and was a breath of fresh air after coding with C++98. Neither Rust not D has a sponsor with really…

There are important differences: D threw away one of the most important features of C/C++ (for the target audience): usability of the language without a garbage collector. Also, Mozilla has much deeper pockets than Digital Mars. Still I agree with you that it is very likely that Rust will follow a parabolic trajectory. The advantages as perceived by the industry compared with C++11/14 will be too few. At the same tim…

> Still I agree with you that it is very likely that Rust will follow a parabolic trajectory. The advantages as perceived by the industry compared with C++11/14 will be too few.

Rust is memory- and type-safe (as in: the compiler will not let you write a dangling reference, invalidate an iterator, or write exception-unsafe code without opting into an unsafe dialect). The security benefits alone of that are enough to justify the language for our use cases, and, from what we've seen, for many others. Safe zero-cost abstractions are a niche to its own.

Re: We have C++14

#192

Post by Game_Ender »

yongjik wrote: post #180
Silhouette wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not that I disagree with your real point about writing maintainable code rather than "clever" code, but if you have a single codebase that is maintained by thousands of engineers then I would argue that you're probably doing something horribly wrong already, and using exceptions is hardly exclusive to so-called rockstars. I don't really understand organisations that still use C++ in 2014 but then knock out such funda…

I agree that using exception is hardly noteworthy these days, but consider that in the context of a codebase that has evolved for more than a decade. I guess, ten years ago, "let's not use exceptions; they aren't worth it" was more justifiable. In any case, the decision was made, and we have millions of LOC where every single API is built with the assumption "No exceptions here." In that context, introducing exceptio…

Not adding much value here, but it is a lot worse. You get 5+ implementations everything, and every project is different just because.

Re: We have C++14

#193

Post by pcwalton »

CountSessine wrote: post #175
zxcdw wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But now you aren't talking about Rust the Language but Rust the Ecosystem . Not that I am disagreeing with your points, I am not. However, when people talk about C++'s problems, I immediately assume they talk about C++'s problems as a language rather than it's ecosysem. Rust isn't out there to tackle C++'s ecosystem, tooling, legacy code or professional workforce, but rather Rust aims somewhere near C++ and fixes man…

Ecosystem really is the whole problem, though. You can never make it big without having lots of friends. Rust is a pretty cool language, but I can't help being reminded about another very well-designed but ultimately unsuccessful C++ challenger, D. The parallels are really hard to ignore. D, like Rust, had great syntax and was a breath of fresh air after coding with C++98. Neither Rust not D has a sponsor with really…

> Both have had compiler and standard library issues.

What are the compiler/standard library issues with Rust? Sure, it's taken time to get to a high level of quality, but no language compiler and library is going to spring out of thin air fully complete. In particular, I'm confident that the Rust compiler is of high quality for its age, especially in the quality of the generated code.

Re: We have C++14

#194

Post by stinos »

eropple wrote: post #152
PopsiclePete wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too bad it's a mirage. No, really. "Modern C++" doesn't exist outside of blog posts, books, and tutorials. Real-world C++ is an array of sometimes mututally-exclusive dialects, patterns, rules, sub-dialects. Reading MFC is nothing like reading Qt which is nothing like WxWidgets which is nothing like Boost which is something (but not quite like) the STL which is way different from Apache C++ libs which is way differen…

> "Modern C++" doesn't exist outside of blog posts, books, and tutorials. That you aren't used to doing greenfield development doesn't mean others are likewise impaired.

While a bit harsh sounding, this is actually spot on. What I write nowadays vs 5 years ago: hard to believe it is the same laguage.

Re: We have C++14

#195

Post by stormbrew »

PopsiclePete wrote: post #98
daenz wrote: post #12

When I started writing C++ around 5 years ago, I had a perception that it was a language that is "on its way out". As I learned more and more of it, I've been super impressed at how modern it is becoming, and how it is adapting to overcome its perceived flaws. It is becoming a killer language to me: blazing fast, modern, ubiquitous, stable, and expressive.

Too bad it's a mirage. No, really. "Modern C++" doesn't exist outside of blog posts, books, and tutorials. Real-world C++ is an array of sometimes mututally-exclusive dialects, patterns, rules, sub-dialects. Reading MFC is nothing like reading Qt which is nothing like WxWidgets which is nothing like Boost which is something (but not quite like) the STL which is way different from Apache C++ libs which is way differen…

Rust is really the only language that's actually targeting the same niche as C++ primarily occupies, system level programming where reasoning about memory management and performance is part of the actual work being done. Go, let alone others, simply do not allow you to do this.

It shows a distinct lack of understanding of why people still use C or C++ to raise languages/environments like Go as viable alternatives.

Re: We have C++14

#196

Post by Guthur »

I see a lot of discussion around C++ becoming modern. I would like to know which features are actually modern?

Is it lambdas? been around for literally decades. Is it type deduction? again been around for quite some time, far better type inference has been available in the likes of Haskell for quite some time. Is it addition of a particular threading model to the standard? this has always been available via some form of library, it just know means the language is truly obsolete if the model changes. Allow GC'd implementations? again decades.

What is modern about any of features that have been added?

Re: We have C++14

#197

Post by pjmlp »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #118
dicroce wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Me too. RAII ftw!

Good luck making your RAII class exception safe. It's extremely difficult, to the point that writing a simple class becomes an hours-long exercise in reasoning about exceptions. And of course, if you admit that exceptions aren't worth worrying about, then you'll start to question the entire "C++ way," which usually ends in disillusionment. Alternatively, instead of disillusionment, you may still kind of enjoy C++. Bu…

> But suddenly you find that it's been three years since you've worked with C++, and on reflection, you haven't really been missing out on much of anything at all by not using C++.

True on my case, now using the language mainly on hobby projects, although we are very good friends since 1993.

Personally I would like safer systems programming languages from Mesa branch of languages had more use in the industry, but OS vendors decided to embrace C instead, and we ended up in the exploits everywhere that we enjoy nowadays.

C++ is not perfect, but it surely is way better than C in terms of safety.

Until a big OS vendor decides to push another systems programming language, we won't see any major adoption from the alternatives.

Re: We have C++14

#198

Post by pjmlp »

Guthur wrote: post #196

I see a lot of discussion around C++ becoming modern. I would like to know which features are actually modern? Is it lambdas? been around for literally decades. Is it type deduction? again been around for quite some time, far better type inference has been available in the likes of Haskell for quite some time. Is it addition of a particular threading model to the standard? this has always been available via some form…

The way all those languages are used together.

Not writing modern C++ means:

- writing C++ as if it was plain C

- doing OO programming with big object graphs

- manual memory management

- not using the standard containers and algorithms

- writing functor objects

Re: We have C++14

#199

Post by claudius »

Guthur wrote: post #196

I see a lot of discussion around C++ becoming modern. I would like to know which features are actually modern? Is it lambdas? been around for literally decades. Is it type deduction? again been around for quite some time, far better type inference has been available in the likes of Haskell for quite some time. Is it addition of a particular threading model to the standard? this has always been available via some form…

> What is modern about any of features that have been added?

Nothing. On the other hand, which features of a “modern” language are missing in C++ by now? Type deduction is still a bit less powerful than in Haskell, yes, but apart from that I can’t really think of anything that may or may not be missing.

This in turn implies that C++ allows essentially any style of coding you may wish for at the moment while at the same time staying some orders of magnitude faster than essentially the entire competition.

Re: We have C++14

#200

Post by banachtarski »

PopsiclePete wrote: post #98
daenz wrote: post #12

When I started writing C++ around 5 years ago, I had a perception that it was a language that is "on its way out". As I learned more and more of it, I've been super impressed at how modern it is becoming, and how it is adapting to overcome its perceived flaws. It is becoming a killer language to me: blazing fast, modern, ubiquitous, stable, and expressive.

Too bad it's a mirage. No, really. "Modern C++" doesn't exist outside of blog posts, books, and tutorials. Real-world C++ is an array of sometimes mututally-exclusive dialects, patterns, rules, sub-dialects. Reading MFC is nothing like reading Qt which is nothing like WxWidgets which is nothing like Boost which is something (but not quite like) the STL which is way different from Apache C++ libs which is way differen…

What experience are you speaking from?
Post reply on HN