Why I don't spend time with Modern C++ anymore • Hacker News Board

Re: Why I don't spend time with Modern C++ anymore

#261

Post by hendzen » Fri, May 20, 2016, 3:30 AM UTC

hellofunk wrote: post #251

aspiringuser wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The heap allocation for the implementation won't be removed by LTO.

I'm inclined to agree that for objects that are going to be created and destroyed very often, especially in tight loops, PIMPL is not an ideal idiom. I wouldn't use it to generate fleeting effects in graphics, for example. For objects that are used in setting up parts of a system and that will persist for long periods of time, maybe even the lifetime of the app, PIMPL is particularly well-suited for such classes. Cla…

Thw complexity and overheead of PIMPL is justified in one scenario, and one scenario only - when you are writing a shared library and need to maintain a stable ABI. Otherwise it is complete overkill.

Re: Why I don't spend time with Modern C++ anymore

#262

Post by kibwen » Fri, May 20, 2016, 3:39 AM UTC

NotRustAgain wrote: post #259

kibwen wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem with using metaphors Then ignore the metaphor and focus on the longer paragraph that succeeds it. :P > I don't need to get a new computer to solve each new > thing that comes up Except that, in practice, you do. I have a smartphone in my pocket, a laptop in my bag, a desktop in my office, and two personal servers in the cloud. Just because two computers are both effectively Turing machines does not auto…

> Then ignore the metaphor and focus on the longer paragraph that succeeds it. :P Your second paragraph had a bunch of economic pseudo-theory about what sells... Maybe that explains why we don't have a good general purpose programming language, but it said little about whether there could be one.

Economics is a social science, pseudo-theory is the bulk of it. :P However, I welcome you to prove me wrong by creating the language to end all others.

Re: Why I don't spend time with Modern C++ anymore

#263

Post by messel » Fri, May 20, 2016, 9:12 AM UTC

NotRustAgain wrote: post #243

coldtea wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A single language needed to solve all problems is a fallacy. Has that been proven and do we have pointers to any peer reviewed papers on that? Because else its just an old's wives tale. I don't see any logical impossibilities for one language to solve all problems (meaning, to work well for at least 4 domains: OS and drivers a la C, apps/games a la C++, network programming a la Go, Java etc, and scripting a la Pyth…

>> A single language needed to solve all problems is a fallacy. > Has that been proven and do we have pointers to any peer reviewed papers on that? I agree with you and can't stand it when people say things like: "All languages have their strengths and weeknesses" or "you just need to choose the right tool for the job". I can't see any reason a clean and simple language can't have high level constructs when you want…

If you drill down far enough it's all binary or byte code. But on the way back up, there are variations of implementation in more than a single language.

Pseudo inception like self describing languages are close but never 100% self describing (this always blows my mind). Then there are languages implemented on top of C, and the many XVM languages (elixir built on the erlang virtual machine, JVM langs, etc)

Any particular language is almost always composed of multiple languages, so trying to craft one to solve all problems is an interesting problem.

Re: Why I don't spend time with Modern C++ anymore

#264

Post by NotRustAgain » Fri, May 20, 2016, 2:44 PM UTC

kibwen wrote: post #262

NotRustAgain wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then ignore the metaphor and focus on the longer paragraph that succeeds it. :P Your second paragraph had a bunch of economic pseudo-theory about what sells... Maybe that explains why we don't have a good general purpose programming language, but it said little about whether there could be one.

Economics is a social science, pseudo-theory is the bulk of it. :P However, I welcome you to prove me wrong by creating the language to end all others.

> :P However, I welcome you to prove me wrong by creating the language to end all others.

Yes yes, I'll be sure to let you know. In the meantime, I hope you'll keep up the great work maintaining the status quo and contributing to a language which avoids problems that experienced programmers don't really have.

:P