7 ms·

> I wonder if Google is at odds with some it? It's at odds with almost all of it. Google's standards are C-with-classes based on compiler bugs circa 1999. Des

> I wonder if Google is at odds with some it? It's at odds with almost all of it. Google's standards are C-with-classes based on compiler bugs circa 1999. Despite their (misleading) marketing, Google is still just another enterprisey megacorp employing 30000 blub programmers. Expect the usual 'enterprise' failures.

hellofunk 11y ago
>based on compiler bugs circa 1999 What do you mean by this?
_yosefk 11y ago
> Google is still just another enterprisey megacorp employing 30000 blub programmers. Expect the usual 'enterprise' failures. Ouch! That must have hurt 'em. Of course the original meaning of "Blub" is "anything which isn't Lisp", especially C++ (as well as say Java.) But what the heck, it has a good sound to it. Anyway, I think their C++ style guide isn't bad. As to "modern C++ style", let's wait for a few years, shall we? When the STL came out, auto_ptr and for_each(v.begin(), v.end(), FunctorFromHell()) were marketed as the way to go for a long while; then the usual suspects became a bit more silent. Now again, despite their being a smart for loop, for_each with a lambda (with its crazy capture lists and all) is supposedly considered at least as good as a for loop, and typically better. And you're supposed to use unique_ptr and what-not. Maybe a few years down the road things will look different again. C++11/14 has a ton of weird shit you ought to keep in your mind on top of the weird shit in C++98/03 and many "enterprisey megacorps" seem to apply a restricted subset of C++ rather successfully.
- hellofunk 11y ago
  It's hard to deny that there are some really useful new features in modern c++, though. Standardized multithreading primitives is a big one. Smaller ones like scoped enums are useful too. I'm a big fan of lambdas and the ability to use them for things that used to be very awkward to do without them, like std::bind and functors. In all, I think the modern additions are a net positive for sure.
  - to3m 11y ago
    If you're of this opinion, you should be glad when people don't use them. This can be your competitive advantage.
  - 72deluxe 11y ago
    I would agree with this. I am writing C++03 at work due to lame compilers I am forced to use on Windows, and I really miss little things like std::atomic. Lambdas would mean I could bin all those structs with bool operator()() for find_if that I have to litter my code with.
    - scott_s 11y ago
      I know a lot of people say "Boost is awful", but Boost provides the same atomic interfaces: http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_60_0/doc/html/atomic.html http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_60_0/doc/html/atomic.html. Quoting from the introduction: "Boost.Atomic is a library that provides atomic data types and operations on these data types, as well as memory ordering constraints required for coordinating multiple threads through atomic variables. It implements the interface as defined by the C++11 standard, but makes this feature available for platforms lacking system/compiler support for this particular C++11 feature."
      - 72deluxe 11y ago
        Thanks for the suggestion, much appreciated.
  - _yosefk 11y ago
    I don't deny that there are useful features in C++11/14 (though I find "modern C++" an irksome marketing trick by people peddling a disgusting programming language; it was called "modern" since at least the early 2000s and it was disgusting then.) Of course I'd rather iterate over std::map with a range for loop than use the C++98 way, and as to lambdas - while I find them way too awkward and limited compared to closures without the sharp edges (and with garbage collection), and a ton of "modern C++ code" went batshit insane in its extent of unnecessary reliance on lambdas, lambdas remain much more practical than the alternatives when doing things like some sort of a parallel_for. But then it's hard to find a language whose version X+1 adds nothing useful to version X. Is C++14 a better language than C++98? It's hard to tell (I think it is - I think C++ is worse than C, but having gotten to C++98, perhaps it helps more than hurts to add all that other shit), but it's not an interesting question anyway because the upgrade is easy enough and it's worth it for most people for their specific reasons, so C++98 will die out. But then it's not like Google aren't upgrading to the latest C++ standard, they're just doing it slowly AFAIK.
- otabdeveloper1 11y ago
  > many "enterprisey megacorps" seem to apply a restricted subset of C++ rather successfully Your definition of 'successfully' is vastly different from the Megacorp definition of 'successfully'. I interview C++ programmers _all the time_, and let me tell you: practically the only reason those restricted subsets of C++ exist is to allow bad programmers to work at Megacorp. There are a lot of really unqualified C++ programmers in the world, and by far the biggest problem faced by Megacorp is employee churn, not code quality and not product deadlines. The use of 'C++ subsets' solves the employee churn problem at the cost of code quality.
  - p0nce 11y ago
    Agreed. If you are using C++ but no exceptions, no RAII, and no std::unique_ptr, you are avoiding the best part of C++.
    - vvanders 11y ago
      I'm with you on RAII and unique_ptr but I've yet to find exceptions to be compelling enough. I find Rust's approach(Result<T,E>) much nicer.
      - lmm 11y ago
        The functional approach is great in a language with typeclasses or modules. But it's not a good fit for RAII - how would a C++ constructor report an error using Result?
        vvanders 11y ago
        By not doing any work in the constructor. IMO constructors should be setting sane defaults and nothing more. If you need to do work that could fail put that into an "init()" function with a return type that can signal an error. I worked for quite a while on platforms that didn't have exceptions and this was the standard pattern for keeping RAII without needing them. If you wrap the return value correctly(like with Result<T,E>) you can also guarantee that your clients need to deal with the error case(or fail to handle it with unwrap()) as opposed to getting caught by an exception that wasn't declared or documented.
petke 11y ago
When I read the Google coding standard I realized I never want to work there. Microsoft on the other hand seems to get cpp. Maybe because herb Sutter has managed to change the culture from the inside. Anyone remember how awful vc6 was back in the day? MS has come a long way. Edit: It seems the standards have changed. It doesn't seem so bad now. They cant use exceptions but they can use some of boost cpp11 and templates. So maybe working at google ain't that bad.

hellofunk 11y ago

>based on compiler bugs circa 1999 What do you mean by this?

_yosefk 11y ago

> Google is still just another enterprisey megacorp employing 30000 blub programmers. Expect the usual 'enterprise' failures. Ouch! That must have hurt 'em. Of course the original meaning of "Blub" is "anything which isn't Lisp", especially C++ (as well as say Java.) But what the heck, it has a good sound to it. Anyway, I think their C++ style guide isn't bad. As to "modern C++ style", let's wait for a few years, shall we? When the STL came out, auto_ptr and for_each(v.begin(), v.end(), FunctorFromHell()) were marketed as the way to go for a long while; then the usual suspects became a bit more silent. Now again, despite their being a smart for loop, for_each with a lambda (with its crazy capture lists and all) is supposedly considered at least as good as a for loop, and typically better. And you're supposed to use unique_ptr and what-not. Maybe a few years down the road things will look different again. C++11/14 has a ton of weird shit you ought to keep in your mind on top of the weird shit in C++98/03 and many "enterprisey megacorps" seem to apply a restricted subset of C++ rather successfully.

hellofunk 11y ago
It's hard to deny that there are some really useful new features in modern c++, though. Standardized multithreading primitives is a big one. Smaller ones like scoped enums are useful too. I'm a big fan of lambdas and the ability to use them for things that used to be very awkward to do without them, like std::bind and functors. In all, I think the modern additions are a net positive for sure.
- to3m 11y ago
  If you're of this opinion, you should be glad when people don't use them. This can be your competitive advantage.
- 72deluxe 11y ago
  I would agree with this. I am writing C++03 at work due to lame compilers I am forced to use on Windows, and I really miss little things like std::atomic. Lambdas would mean I could bin all those structs with bool operator()() for find_if that I have to litter my code with.
  - scott_s 11y ago
    I know a lot of people say "Boost is awful", but Boost provides the same atomic interfaces: http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_60_0/doc/html/atomic.html http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_60_0/doc/html/atomic.html. Quoting from the introduction: "Boost.Atomic is a library that provides atomic data types and operations on these data types, as well as memory ordering constraints required for coordinating multiple threads through atomic variables. It implements the interface as defined by the C++11 standard, but makes this feature available for platforms lacking system/compiler support for this particular C++11 feature."
    - 72deluxe 11y ago
      Thanks for the suggestion, much appreciated.
- _yosefk 11y ago
  I don't deny that there are useful features in C++11/14 (though I find "modern C++" an irksome marketing trick by people peddling a disgusting programming language; it was called "modern" since at least the early 2000s and it was disgusting then.) Of course I'd rather iterate over std::map with a range for loop than use the C++98 way, and as to lambdas - while I find them way too awkward and limited compared to closures without the sharp edges (and with garbage collection), and a ton of "modern C++ code" went batshit insane in its extent of unnecessary reliance on lambdas, lambdas remain much more practical than the alternatives when doing things like some sort of a parallel_for. But then it's hard to find a language whose version X+1 adds nothing useful to version X. Is C++14 a better language than C++98? It's hard to tell (I think it is - I think C++ is worse than C, but having gotten to C++98, perhaps it helps more than hurts to add all that other shit), but it's not an interesting question anyway because the upgrade is easy enough and it's worth it for most people for their specific reasons, so C++98 will die out. But then it's not like Google aren't upgrading to the latest C++ standard, they're just doing it slowly AFAIK.
otabdeveloper1 11y ago
> many "enterprisey megacorps" seem to apply a restricted subset of C++ rather successfully Your definition of 'successfully' is vastly different from the Megacorp definition of 'successfully'. I interview C++ programmers _all the time_, and let me tell you: practically the only reason those restricted subsets of C++ exist is to allow bad programmers to work at Megacorp. There are a lot of really unqualified C++ programmers in the world, and by far the biggest problem faced by Megacorp is employee churn, not code quality and not product deadlines. The use of 'C++ subsets' solves the employee churn problem at the cost of code quality.
- p0nce 11y ago
  Agreed. If you are using C++ but no exceptions, no RAII, and no std::unique_ptr, you are avoiding the best part of C++.
  - vvanders 11y ago
    I'm with you on RAII and unique_ptr but I've yet to find exceptions to be compelling enough. I find Rust's approach(Result<T,E>) much nicer.
    - lmm 11y ago
      The functional approach is great in a language with typeclasses or modules. But it's not a good fit for RAII - how would a C++ constructor report an error using Result?
      - vvanders 11y ago
        By not doing any work in the constructor. IMO constructors should be setting sane defaults and nothing more. If you need to do work that could fail put that into an "init()" function with a return type that can signal an error. I worked for quite a while on platforms that didn't have exceptions and this was the standard pattern for keeping RAII without needing them. If you wrap the return value correctly(like with Result<T,E>) you can also guarantee that your clients need to deal with the error case(or fail to handle it with unwrap()) as opposed to getting caught by an exception that wasn't declared or documented.

petke 11y ago

When I read the Google coding standard I realized I never want to work there. Microsoft on the other hand seems to get cpp. Maybe because herb Sutter has managed to change the culture from the inside. Anyone remember how awful vc6 was back in the day? MS has come a long way. Edit: It seems the standards have changed. It doesn't seem so bad now. They cant use exceptions but they can use some of boost cpp11 and templates. So maybe working at google ain't that bad.