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

C++11 Makes Competitors Go Rusty

nerds-central.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–69 of 69 posts

Re: C++11 Makes Competitors Go Rusty

#61

Post by javadyan »

jerf wrote: post #55
javadyan wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any useful language is a freaking enormous ball of mud. Bjarne said: there are only two kinds of languages - the ones people complain about and the ones nobody uses.

I can not think of a cognitively bigger language than C++. And I mean language , not library set or anything like that, but literally, what the syntactic constructs are, how they are defined, and in particular how they end up interacting with each other. I often wonder how many of the C++ defenders could actually answer detailed questions about it, or how much of the code they write would actually deeply, deeply surp…

You can replace C++ with almost any other mainstream language in the above paragraph and it would still hold true. Problem is, contemporary general-purpose languages are used for such a wide range of different tasks that it is simply impossible for them not to be complex (syntactically or in terms of runtime envoronment). And yes you can hide complexity behind abstractions (which our programming languages successfully do), but you cannot really eliminate it. And despite all that I see more real-world applications written in "horrible" languages like C++ or Java than in "elegant" languages like Common Lisp.

Re: C++11 Makes Competitors Go Rusty

#62

Post by ComputerGuru »

CJefferson wrote: post #25
ComputerGuru wrote: post #13

A couple of nitpicks: C++/Tr1 has also solved many of the same problems without needing a new compiler Not true. While many of the boost/tr1/c++0x features are introduced via new headers, there are many compiler-level changes, and that's why you need to use the latest versions of clang/g++/msvc/icc to take advantage of them. Things like r-value references just can't be done without a "new" compiler. My other nitpick…

I wonder if you are confusing TR1 (which came out several years ago), and C++11. TR1 was designed to not need compiler extensions (although some parts of type_traits, that AFAIK no-one ever used in the TR1 days, could be improved with compiler support). TR1 added regex and tuple among others. It certainly didn't have rvalue references. C++11 is the new big standard, which certainly requires large amounts of compiler…

No, but I suspect the author of TFA is/has. That would explain the inconsistencies throughout his post.

Re: C++11 Makes Competitors Go Rusty

#63

Post by evincarofautumn »

SamReidHughes wrote: post #57
evincarofautumn wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except the C++ dragon rears its head. How do you build an intelligent Maybe or Either type in C++? Should they be value types containing unions? You can’t use “non-trivial” types in unions till C++11, and a lot of people haven’t yet upgraded. Referential types with dynamic allocation? How do you transfer ownership? Are “Left” and “Right” subtypes of “Either”? It’s ridiculous.

The choices are clear for every situation you describe.

To you, to me, but not to most C++ users. Yeah, these types should be in a library, but that’s not the point. A programmer shouldn’t have to be on par with the Boost writers to make something this conceptually simple. I’ve used C++ as my primary language for years and only now can I speak with authority on the finer points of the language. It’s quite powerful, but so unpleasant.

Re: C++11 Makes Competitors Go Rusty

#64

Post by marshray »

munificent wrote: post #18
scott_s wrote: post #11

I like and use C++. It fits my requirements of allowing high performance but still having rich abstractions. I also like most of the additions in C++11, and I look forward to using them. But, there is a valid argument for using a newer language that has nothing to do with the language itself: the ancient include, compile and link process. Having to do the #ifndef/#define/#endif dance in every header file I write is a…

> Having to do the #ifndef/#define/#endif dance in every header file I write I'm just using "#pragma once" in my current hobby C++ project. I understand pragmas are living in sin, but is there any reason I shouldn't use them?

I wouldn't use "#pragma once", but it's also a straightforward thing to change later. If that turns out to be the only thing you need to refactor away from later as the project evolves, you're doing great.

Re: C++11 Makes Competitors Go Rusty

#65

Post by jerf »

javadyan wrote: post #61
jerf wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can not think of a cognitively bigger language than C++. And I mean language , not library set or anything like that, but literally, what the syntactic constructs are, how they are defined, and in particular how they end up interacting with each other. I often wonder how many of the C++ defenders could actually answer detailed questions about it, or how much of the code they write would actually deeply, deeply surp…

You can replace C++ with almost any other mainstream language in the above paragraph and it would still hold true. Problem is, contemporary general-purpose languages are used for such a wide range of different tasks that it is simply impossible for them not to be complex (syntactically or in terms of runtime envoronment). And yes you can hide complexity behind abstractions (which our programming languages successfull…

I can write Java code that will not surprise me with unexpected copies, contain huge memory problems (GC does have edge cases, but if you throw that in I will throw in "non-trivial memory management in C++ when 'just use a smart pointer' doesn't work" and you don't come out ahead at all), or surprise me greatly with the memory model. It doesn't have a huge syntax, and the language doesn't get 50% bigger on every release of the syntax. Many Java programmers can answer questions that go quite deep into how Java works.

I don't like or use Java, and it isn't perfect by any means. My point is just how far I didn't have to go down the list of "mainstream languages" before your claim is completely false. C++ is an outlier.

C also has the memory leaking issue, but the rest is false as well. Though in the memory model case it's by virtue of not having one.

And that's sticking with a very generous-for-you interpretation of "mainstream". If I'm allowed to dip down to Python or something you're even worse off.

Re: C++11 Makes Competitors Go Rusty

#66

Post by Mavrik »

I hate to be "that guy", but for someones sake, fix the site on ipads. Not only it tells you you're using an incompatibble browser (a blast from IE past), then it swirtches to iPad specific (????) non-zoomable fixed layout, which makes it pain to read.

Really, how can a tech person think this is a good idea of publishing content? Please fix it.

Re: C++11 Makes Competitors Go Rusty

#67

Post by bitcracker »

dkarl wrote: post #36
jerf wrote: post #8

Your freaking enormous ball of mud accreted some more mud. Quelle surprise . It's probably doing it by sheer gravitational attraction at this point. I do not think that removes the need for languages that have the capabilities of C++, yet aren't freaking enormous balls of mud. The reader may mentally replace my use of the word "freaking" with other choice terms at his or her discretion.

I agree. I think people who know C++ and people who do not know C++ will have very different attitudes toward the evolution of C++. I sunk a lot of effort into C++ when it was the best game in town for a lot of things, so I'm excited to see one of the sharpest tools in my toolbox get a little sharper. If you must write C++ code (or C code, since it's easier to write C++ instead) then by all means you should learn C++…

> anyone who doesn't already know C++ should avoid the investment of learning it

ACK. I know many languages, and my advice after using C++ for several years is: Don't dare try to do everything in C++. Use C++ only when it is absolutely necessary.

Just compare this C++ code

http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/program.php?test=regex...

with this equivalent Javascript code to understand immediately what I mean:

http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/benchmark.php?test=reg...

It's funny that this V8 code runs even 4.5 times faster (!) than C++ :)

http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/performance.php?test=r...

Re: C++11 Makes Competitors Go Rusty

#68

Post by javadyan »

jerf wrote: post #65
javadyan wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can replace C++ with almost any other mainstream language in the above paragraph and it would still hold true. Problem is, contemporary general-purpose languages are used for such a wide range of different tasks that it is simply impossible for them not to be complex (syntactically or in terms of runtime envoronment). And yes you can hide complexity behind abstractions (which our programming languages successfull…

I can write Java code that will not surprise me with unexpected copies, contain huge memory problems (GC does have edge cases, but if you throw that in I will throw in "non-trivial memory management in C++ when 'just use a smart pointer' doesn't work" and you don't come out ahead at all), or surprise me greatly with the memory model. It doesn't have a huge syntax, and the language doesn't get 50% bigger on every rele…

All I can say is, I can write C++ code that will not surprise me with unexpected copies, contain huge memory problems, or surprise me greatly with the memory model.Stop whining and learn to use your tools, goddamit.

Re: C++11 Makes Competitors Go Rusty

#69

Post by gaius »

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #3

I have fun when I write code with Go. I love the syntax, type inference and standard libraries. I wrote a transcoding video http server with html frontend in like a hundred lines of code and it doesn't make my eyes bleed. I don't think Go needs to replace C++ but I certainly prefer it. I think there are tons of uses for C++ still obviously (least of which is Go's GC-nature), but I don't think C++11 makes redundant th…

Go is implemented in C and C++[1]. I often tell people that Tcl is a C library with a flexible configuration file. But comparing compactness of code when all you are really doing is invoking C is misleading.

[1] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3327676/what-language-is-...

Post reply on HN