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

C++ and the Culture of Complexity (2013)

blog.greaterthanzero.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 285 posts

Re: C++ and the Culture of Complexity (2013)

#61

Post by masklinn »

mikevm wrote: post #48
notacoward wrote: post #16

The bullet list near the end closely matches my own experience with C++. There's an inordinate number of features creating an even worse profusion of edge cases where they interact. Then the "solutions" for those edge cases usually add even more complexity. Worse, they force programmers to coddle their compilers. The ratio between what a C++ compiler will accept and what it will produce sane code for is huge . That's…

How is Rust less complicated than C++? I don't use it, but from what I read it seems to be even more complicated, and getting even more so with the myriad of features they are adding each release.

> How is Rust less complicated than C++?

In pretty much all senses of the word?

> getting even more so with the myriad of features they are adding each release.

It's far from adding a "myriad of features" with each release, and most of those it adds are library stuff, see for 1.23: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/RELEASES.md#ve...

And with respect to non-library features currently in-flight, by and large they are "playing catch-up" to C/C++ for compatibility or to fulfil use cases for which the language is not currently convenient or sufficient e.g. generics-over-values, const functions, allocators.

Rust has an upfront feeling of complexity in lifetimes and the borrow checker, but here's the ugly truth: pointer lifetime issues don't exist any less in C++, the only difference is the compiler doesn't help you with them.

Re: C++ and the Culture of Complexity (2013)

#62

Post by thebear »

yason wrote: post #59

While my pet peeves might be different than the author's I agree that C++ makes you work very hard to keep things simple and produce something that is beautiful. Just "avoid the complexity you don't absolutely need" doesn't really work: some basic things are so fundamentally convoluted that I rather just write idiomatic C because it's simple and doesn't get in my way. I want the language to originate from simple axio…

Author of the blog post here. I think you just made me aware of the true and deeper reason for my discomfort with C++: it's the fact that the convolutions are in the basic things. I am perfectly willing to put up with convolutions, annoyances, bugs, weaknesses etc. in anything I use, be it a programming language, a piece of software, a gadget, whatever. Nothing is perfect, and who am I to criticize others for the imperfections in their work. What annoys me is when the annoyances are in the basic things, in the most commonly used features. Make the basic things reasonably good, and keep the crap off to the side.

Re: C++ and the Culture of Complexity (2013)

#63

Post by IshKebab »

bjorn2k wrote: post #46

I agree that c++ is complex, but remember that while trying to update the language the standard committee is trying not to do breaking changes. If you can do a greenfield implementation like rust, you don't have the baggage of an installed base, yet. If you compare c++ to a language that is also around for more that 25 years it starts to make more sense why it is complex. Add to that, that it started as an extension…

Yeah by keeping backwards compatibility they avoided something like the Python 2/3 mess which I would say is worth the effort and cruft.

Re: C++ and the Culture of Complexity (2013)

#64

Post by IshKebab »

pjmlp wrote: post #40
KayEss wrote: post #37

Part of the problem here is that OO sits nicely with references, but C++ (like C) is a value based language. This can be seen clearly in most of the design of the standard library -- it's all value semantics, and as such relatively simple and obvious to use (so long as you're not trying to cram OO into it). A line like if ( a == b ) In C++ is pretty obvious what it does. It'll always be a value comparison, and if a a…

Object Pascal, Eiffel, Ada, Mesa/Cedar, Oberon, Modula-2, Modula-3, Oberon, Oberon-2, Oberon07, Active Oberon, Component Pascal, Sather, Swift, D, Go, Rust are OO languages[1] and value based as well. [1] - As usual, there are many ways of doing OO, not just C++/Java style.

I don't really know about the others but Rust isn't really OO. Neither is Go.

Re: C++ and the Culture of Complexity (2013)

#66

Post by narayanbs »

foo101 wrote: post #11
narayanbs wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Either you are confusing verbosity with complexity or you have never actually written a "complex" software in C++. There are too many things to think about while writing a piece of code in C++, most often than not, you are bound to get things wrong.

I am not confusing verbosity with complexity and I have written all kinds of C++ software over a career of 15 years ranging from legacy core banking systems to hardware drivers. In fact, the simple C++ code often tends to be verbose. When you are writing complex software, you are bound to get things wrong in any language, not just C++. What I am arguing for is that C++ code need not be complex even if the C++ languag…

I apologize if i sounded condescending, and coming from a BFSI background myself, it was such a relief to write software systems in Java after years of C++. I agree "C++ code need not be complex", but the language itself is so designed that most often than not, you end up heading down a slippery slope.

Re: C++ and the Culture of Complexity (2013)

#67

Post by tomohawk »

otabdeveloper1 wrote: post #65

C++ is not more complex that its competitors like Haskell or Rust.

Having used c++ for many years, this does not come across as a ringing endorsement for looking into Haskell or Rust.

I'm quite happy with my current gig using Go. Looking back, the culture of complexity surrounding c++ is obvious, but talking with my peers who have only ever done c++ - it's like they have Stockholm Syndrome.

Re: C++ and the Culture of Complexity (2013)

#68

Post by jejones3141 »

notacoward wrote: post #16

The bullet list near the end closely matches my own experience with C++. There's an inordinate number of features creating an even worse profusion of edge cases where they interact. Then the "solutions" for those edge cases usually add even more complexity. Worse, they force programmers to coddle their compilers. The ratio between what a C++ compiler will accept and what it will produce sane code for is huge . That's…

> C++, on the other hand, seems to have been designed by compiler writers for their own enjoyment and/or job security.

If that were the case, the Edison Design Group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edison_Design_Group) wouldn't exist. It exists because compiler writers don't want to have to deal with parsing C++.

(Then there's Dinkumware, which serves the same purpose for library functions.)

Re: C++ and the Culture of Complexity (2013)

#69

Post by Santosh83 »

WalterBright wrote: post #30
notacoward wrote: post #16

The bullet list near the end closely matches my own experience with C++. There's an inordinate number of features creating an even worse profusion of edge cases where they interact. Then the "solutions" for those edge cases usually add even more complexity. Worse, they force programmers to coddle their compilers. The ratio between what a C++ compiler will accept and what it will produce sane code for is huge . That's…

> C++, on the other hand, seems to have been designed by compiler writers for their own enjoyment and/or job security. Being a C++ compiler writer (Zortech C++, Symantec C++, Digital Mars C++) I can assure you this is not true at all. As to why C++ is so complex, my opinion is it is because it was designed a long time ago, what is considered better practice in designing languages has moved on, and C++ is unwilling to…

THIS is the reason IMO too. C++ has taken on the very difficult task of remaining broadly compatible with C and with legacy features while at the same time has continuously evolved over the decades, incorporating whatever was the state of the art at that time, without new features breaking old code. That is not an easy task without increasing complexity.

Re: C++ and the Culture of Complexity (2013)

#70

Post by luk32 »

thebear wrote: post #62
yason wrote: post #59

While my pet peeves might be different than the author's I agree that C++ makes you work very hard to keep things simple and produce something that is beautiful. Just "avoid the complexity you don't absolutely need" doesn't really work: some basic things are so fundamentally convoluted that I rather just write idiomatic C because it's simple and doesn't get in my way. I want the language to originate from simple axio…

Author of the blog post here. I think you just made me aware of the true and deeper reason for my discomfort with C++: it's the fact that the convolutions are in the basic things. I am perfectly willing to put up with convolutions, annoyances, bugs, weaknesses etc. in anything I use, be it a programming language, a piece of software, a gadget, whatever. Nothing is perfect, and who am I to criticize others for the imp…

I'd be very careful with the claim that you are willing to put up with bugs.

Bugs in language or compiler will make the language useless for any project which is expected to work.

I'm gonna be bold any say that you nor anyone else would put up with it. There's enough bug in one's own code, there is rarely any space for unreliable infrastructure.

Post reply on HN