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

Modern C++ Programming Course

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 221 posts

Re: Modern C++ Programming Course

#81

Post by muststopmyths »

bayindirh wrote: post #3
codebeaker wrote: post #2

[flagged]

Genuinely asking: Why many programmers need tools to enforce something upon them? Why not they can't take slow, be mindful about what they write and add a couple of layers as pre-commit hooks? Like a code formatter and maybe a linter? This makes me sad. Programmers have the knowledge base to make some of the most sophisticated things bend to their will, and they tell a programming language is bad, because they can ma…

That is all well and good on a small team of senior people , but if your project has more than a handful, with mixed experience levels, you want tools to enforce a minimum standard before even getting to code review

Re: Modern C++ Programming Course

#82

Post by butlerm »

tialaramex wrote: post #45
indigo945 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, you seem to be precisely the target audience for the course linked in this very post: > This open-access course is directed at those who are already familiar with C > and object-oriented programming towards a proficiency level of C++ > programming.

Maybe, in this context it makes lots of sense, if you know C well there are things which "just work how you expect" in C++ and so they need at most a brief refresher. I agree with Kate Gregory that this is a bad way to teach C++ from scratch. That is, if you know only say, Python or Java (or nothing) and want to learn C++, you should not begin by learning C. Kate's approach skips many of the things you can do in C++…

There is a considerable divergence of opinion on that subject. In my view, C++ isn't remotely suitable as a programming language for someone without a healthy understanding of C. Perhaps a dialect of C++ could be developed that was more of a cousin to Rust, but C++ as we know it is a C like programming language with a very large number of features added and all the ways to fail just like a C program does. There are real world advantages of course, but it is not a language for the faint of heart, not even close.

Re: Modern C++ Programming Course

#83

Post by npalli »

Pengtuzi wrote: post #68
javier_e06 wrote: post #64

I like to watch Formula 1 and NASCAR races. As interesting as seeing the cars pushing the limit of materials and mechanics is just as interesting seeing them crash. It shows the flip side of design. I wish this sunny-side tutorials had at the end of their books some black pages with the hall of horrors. Weird compilation messages and pointers getting demoted and random segfaults in real scenarios. We all remember the…

I’m quite fond of the C++ frequently Questioned Answers: https://yosefk.com/c++fqa/

"Note: some parts of the FQA are not up to date with C++11/14/17. You can contribute to the FQA on GitHub."

LOL, yeah I think we can stop spending time on this (which was quite funny back in the day).

Re: Modern C++ Programming Course

#85

Post by bayindirh »

e12e wrote: post #80
bayindirh wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuinely asking: Why many programmers need tools to enforce something upon them? Why not they can't take slow, be mindful about what they write and add a couple of layers as pre-commit hooks? Like a code formatter and maybe a linter? This makes me sad. Programmers have the knowledge base to make some of the most sophisticated things bend to their will, and they tell a programming language is bad, because they can ma…

> Why many programmers need tools to enforce something upon them? Why not they can't take slow, be mindful about what they write and add a couple of layers as pre-commit hooks? Like a code formatter and maybe a linter? Running a formatter and linter in a pre-commit hook is literally using tools to enforce things?

I have noted elsewhere in the thread, but I think I was unable to express myself very clearly.

What I really meant is enforced externally on the programmer, in the form of compiler, development environment setup (from elsewhere) or other guidelines, without any free will to tune or disable them.

The layers I add are voluntary, just checks and balances I decided to add myself because I think they help me, and not enforced as part of the language or toolchain I'm forced to use.

IOW, a self-respecting developer striving to do a good job can continuously sharpen themselves iteratively, tuning their processes and fixing the problems they see as they go along their journey.

Perhaps pjmlp understood the gist of my comment, and his answer is a pretty nice hit on the head of the subject. Honestly, I'm coming from a point where programming is more of a passion which pays rather than work/job for me, hence I have an inner drive to do my best and improve continuously, and not everyone shares the same set of values or inner drive about programming, and want to be railroaded into an environment where they can do the absolute minimum to get things done.

Re: Modern C++ Programming Course

#86

Post by agentultra »

bayindirh wrote: post #3
codebeaker wrote: post #2

[flagged]

Genuinely asking: Why many programmers need tools to enforce something upon them? Why not they can't take slow, be mindful about what they write and add a couple of layers as pre-commit hooks? Like a code formatter and maybe a linter? This makes me sad. Programmers have the knowledge base to make some of the most sophisticated things bend to their will, and they tell a programming language is bad, because they can ma…

Because even the most careful C++ programmer still makes plenty of mistakes. Not the, "oops I cut my finger," kind. Those are usually found by linters and analyzers. More like, "there's a PCI breach and now we're liable for millions of dollars," kind: the semantics of C++ are hard to nail down and ensuring that private data doesn't leak to other threads is almost impossible to get right with only knowing C++ and being careful.

You generally need to use higher-level tools for that kind of work: Coq + the Iris framework, for example, in order to prove that your system can freely share memory and not leak secrets so long as X, Y, and Z hold, etc.

Or you need to run a ton of tools like Jepsen to find if your system behaves the way you think it does.

What baking more of the specification language into the programming language does (ie: better type systems) is enable us to have more of these guarantees earlier in the development process when changes are cheaper and faster to make (at the expense of requiring more expertise to use them).

Re: Modern C++ Programming Course

#89

Post by bluedino »

Zetobal wrote: post #46
timdiggerm wrote: post #28

"A Little History of C 3/3" says that C was used in the special effects for Star Wars. I do not know what relevance this has, honestly, but independent of that is the strange choice of photo: an image from the Empire Strikes Back which shows stop-motion models with optically-composited, rotoscoped lasers. Excepting that this may be from the digitally recomposited Special Editions, no C code was used in the making of…

Watch Lights & Magic on Disney+ and you will understand why the reference is in there. ILM, Pixar, WETA had huge influx on graphical swe... hell even photoshop was a sideproject of ILM at the time.

Isn't the wireframe death star scene the only part done in C (and therefore by computer) in the first movie?

https://cdm.link/2021/11/watch-larry-cuba-explain-how-he-ani...

Re: Modern C++ Programming Course

#90

Post by dimitrios1 »

steveklabnik wrote: post #76
dimitrios1 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does it make sense to still invest time to learn C++ when Rust exists? Yes. The overwhelming majority of industry is using C/C++. Rust is still very much niche when compared to the overall market. Additionally, (Someone can correct me if this is wrong) IIRC, mozilla, was initially one of the biggest proponents of rust, but still just uses rust in a supplementary role. C++ still powers the heavy lifting.

Mozilla is not “one of the biggest proponents of Rust” anymore, in that other, larger entities are now as well. Rust is at the center of many products, large and small. That doesn’t mean that C and C++ aren’t also large, even larger, but this has been changing for years and only shows signs of accelerating, not slowing down.

The size difference is like Sutter Buttes versus Mahalangur Himal, so unless it's accelerating at the speed of light, C++ will be dwarfing rust's usage for many years to come.

This is the umpteenth time large tech companies have sponsored C++'s successor. Go was famously created to eventually supplant C++ at Google (or more specifically, solve the issue of long build times). Over a decade later, C++ is very much still in heavy usage at Google.

If I were a bettin' man (or if I were trying to increase my general employment odds), and the choices were between Rust or C++, I would pick C++.

That being said, if I were in a comfortable financial position, wanted to scratch a nerd itch, and have fun programming again, I would absolutely pick Rust over C++.

But those are two very different scenarios.

Post reply on HN