21–30 of 158 posts
Sources? I haven't heard of any company disallowing it, on the contrary, have heard of companies promoting its use.
edit: fixed formatting
I think C++ is just fine. Memory management is not that hard anymore using smart pointers. I prefer that to java at any time of the night or day. Such an ugly verbose language. The buzz word laden stuff is actually quite bad. I have seen what could be rather simple systems be very unreliable and slow because of the many microservices all in their own container. Then if one is sensible enough to avoid that there is an…
Smart pointers has some overhead though, even unique_ptr. I like to use raii to handle normal pointers. For many programs memory leaks can just be handled by exit, too.
I tend to disagree. (Modern) C++ is an incredibly powerful programming language. Contrary to some other languages it gives the developer maximal freedom and does not impose a particular way of doing things on the developer.
In theory, yes. In practice few people use C++ fully, too often you find in-house "style-guides" vetoing specific things, such as Google's famous "no exceptions". At the point you rule out using available facilities of the language you might as well use something else.
Yes. They can be a lot slower, because they might still need whatever it is that state brings to the table (f'r instance, caching, or argument suites).
They often need to rebuild the state, each time, or make it someone else's problem.
I run into this with CRUD stuff, all the time. I’m not an FP programmer (they do great stateless stuff), so I am sure I could do better.
These days, I spend as little time as possible, in the backend.
If you look at something like `apt-cache show podman | grep ^Built-Using:` (Output: https://paste.debian.net/plain/1225449) on Debian 11, you will see why. Imagine a few of those components shared between tens of packages, and security problems discovered im some. It's got to be any package maintainer's worst nightmare.
> You may like STL, but that doesn’t change the fact that a huge number of companies have policies against using it. Sources? I haven't heard of any company disallowing it, on the contrary, have heard of companies promoting its use. edit: fixed formatting
> You may like STL, but that doesn’t change the fact that a huge number of companies have policies against using it. Sources? I haven't heard of any company disallowing it, on the contrary, have heard of companies promoting its use. edit: fixed formatting
A lot of game companies don't use STL. I assume theremust be plenty of system software companies doing the same.
anecdotally in the last ten years I haven't seen a single C++ codebase not using the stl, except arduino-level stuff
I tend to disagree. (Modern) C++ is an incredibly powerful programming language. Contrary to some other languages it gives the developer maximal freedom and does not impose a particular way of doing things on the developer.
In theory, yes. In practice few people use C++ fully, too often you find in-house "style-guides" vetoing specific things, such as Google's famous "no exceptions". At the point you rule out using available facilities of the language you might as well use something else.
Almost never seen that in practice. I always see people talking about it in forums, but in real-world gigs I don't know people who artificially restrict their codebase with braindead rules like that.
"You can write reasonably fast software in almost any decent language (with a few exceptions)." - this is entirely wrong statement.
"You can write reasonably fast software in almost any decent language (with a few exceptions)." - this is entirely wrong statement.
Ye I feel the author has no clue what he is talking about. "I can appreciate the “macho factor” of being able to write fast software in C or C++ (or even Objective-C), but most people aren’t going to be able to do that" I mean, C is probably the simplest tool to write fast software with, since there are so few hidden costs to know about. Like strdup does a malloc. What else? In C++ you have to know implementation det…
The simplicity is the hard part. Fishing for compliments by "pretending" it's so trivial to you shows immaturity.
The author definitely knows what he's talking about. Perhaps it's you who's doesn't?