8 ms·

It's interesting to consistently find that people who hate C++ just really really hate it a lot, to the point of using profanity a lot of the time. I don't see

It's interesting to consistently find that people who hate C++ just really really hate it a lot, to the point of using profanity a lot of the time. I don't see what the big deal is. C++ is probably the most gigantic and complex language I am likely to ever use... but you don't have to use the vast majority of it if you don't want to. If you want to stick with C-style coding, you pretty much can, if you don't want OO or STL or ++11/14 features -- nothing is forcing you to write those features into your code. But when you want access to them, there they are; and if suddenly you find yourself needing a particular library that only exists in C++ (as so many graphics and physics engines do), you can get access to that as well. As soon as you need multithreading, or sorting of hash maps, or even basic string operations, knowing you can reach for them in pinch rather than find the C alternatives or build your own, seems like a big bonus to me (assuming a comparison to C).

72deluxe 11y ago
True, but I think a lot of the encouragement is to move away from writing C++ like it is C because we really don't want to encourage people to write with dangerous approaches anymore (like you can if you write C++ like it is C). I work with a few who write their C++ like it is C (pointers thrown around, no const-correctness, memcpy instead of copy constructors etc. etc.) and it is horrible to read. There is no indication of lifetimes of objects, nor any indication of ownership. No RAII, no exceptions, nothing. It is dangerous. You are rewarded for writing C++ safely because you won't have to fix any bugs and you can offload all the work onto the compiler for checking types and safety for you. Like you, though, I don't understand people who get red in the face about C++ and go into a profane rage. It is just a language after all.
- ratboy666 11y ago
  Guilty. Of writing C++ as if it were C. Sometimes even with classes. Yes, I use memcpy instead of copy constructors. I find "modern C++" horrible to read. Indication of object lifetime? Ownership? Um... why? If the development support does not include a garbage collector, I have to be very careful about these things. And, I am. Very careful indeed. I just use the approach I do in C, and assume NOTHING from C++. Honestly, I do NOT assume that the language system, compiler or run-time can do it properly. I have been bitten too many times. I do presume a garbage collector at the very next level up. Yes, you may find my code "horrible to read". And, yes, I have gone into profane rages over C++ code. It happens when the code bullies me -- with hopeless error messages for simple typos. When simple changes cause the application to no longer link. When simple changes cause massive explosions in object size. In fact C++ is so complex, it encourages cargo cult programming. Not just use of libraries, but enforced cargo-cult when USING the libraries. Because, raisons. Not just a language -- hell-spawn. Sorry, "modern hell-spawn".
  - 72deluxe 11y ago
    The problem is that if you were hit by a bus, the next guy maintaining the code has to know about where everything is cleaned up and has to know all of the secrets that you know and that you decided you knew better than the compiler in areas. This makes for unmaintainable code. Ownership is very important because if you don't know who owns it, who will clean it up?? If you don't know how long an object will be around because you've got a pointer, it is now a dangling pointer and attempts to use it will cause chaos. So object lifetime is important too. The error messages are usually quite helpful. clang's messages are more helpful for gcc, I have found. C++ is complex, but you can still write safe code without using any of the complexities.
  - vvanders 11y ago
    If you hate the idea of ownership and lifetimes I want to stay the hell away from any codebase you work on.
    - ratboy666 11y ago
      No, what I "hate" is the idea that C++ promotes "automatic" management of "ownership and lifetime" without a garbage collector. Which works, except when it doesn't. Which results in stuff like reference counting in the codebase. Which, of course, changes on a whim. Example: the CEF3 library (chromium embedded framework). Reference counted objects. Which requires source code changes depending on the version of CEF 3 being used. Requires VERY deep analysis to determine what to change in the using code. Really -- because the objects participate in a multi-threaded library. So, most code ends up as "cargo cult". Since my code doesn't fit into the CEF3 object model, I do the contortions needed -- building another layer.
      - vvanders 11y ago
        Ownership and Lifetimes != Reference counting. Reference counting is code smell that you don't have a clear ownership model. Take a look a Rust for something more along the lines of what I'm talking about. There's been quite a few people who've re-written their C/C++ code to Rust only to find out that they didn't have a clear ownership model and found architectural improvements because of it.
- pjmlp 11y ago
  This is why although I like C++ a lot, nowadays my day job is spent between JVM and .NET languages, with C++ only when I need to step out of them. From what I know, having the chance to ever find a job on my area where one can use proper C++ is very thin.
- pcwalton 11y ago
  > You are rewarded for writing C++ safely because you won't have to fix any bugs and you can offload all the work onto the compiler for checking types and safety for you. But that's not the case. No shipping version of C++ is memory safe. In fact, this is exactly what the article is about.
- alfalfasprout 11y ago
  Here's the thing, there is a nice way (well, more than one) to blend highly tuned low-level C code with clean, modern C++. I have to do it: I work on high performance algorithmic trading systems. You want to keep raw pointers, etc. confined to private class members, initialize memory only within the constructor (if possible), and free memory at the destructor. The user/public API should not expose unsafe stuff. With all this, RAII will give you a nice expectation of lifetime, etc. Plus you're able to use something like tcmalloc. I often find a difficult issue arises when you have a large data structure that you want to free before it goes out of scope (to reclaim some memory). In this case, adding a "clear" method that frees the internals is handy. The destructor will call clear() but you can call it at any time. No harm done if it's called twice. The next thing is const-correctness: if you follow it then any C-like code underneath should be relatively safe. Not using copy constructors is just awful. Memcpy has a time and a place: at the low level (eg; I use it for serializing to a buffer). If you're using memcpy for classes you're probably doing something wrong. Exceptions are a place where you see a wide gamut of safety. Some people don't use them at all: which isn't great. Others add hundreds of lines of code by wrapping everything in a try/catch. Not sure where I stand here, honestly. There's a point where you're catching exceptions that just aren't going to happen...
blub 11y ago
He's not just any guy, but the guy that created a whole website, C++ FQA, dedicated to trying to explain how C++ is terrible. Or maybe he just shares the same name with him. Anyway, it's difficult to have a reasonable discussion over a topic where said topic has religious dimensions for one of the involved parties.
- _yosefk 11y ago
  That's me alright, but I think my comment in this instance didn't warrant the claim about "religious dimensions." Having a firm opinion and using (OMG) the word "shit" when stating it does not mean it's a religion, and I'm very secularly using much of C++11 as I said, and I was among the people pushing for the upgrade where I work.
  - blub 11y ago
    Maybe it was too strong of a word, but... I have the impression that C++ topics are more emotional than they need to be. In the end it's just a programming language.
sitkack 11y ago
I tried being a C++ programmer back along time ago (1992-1995) and I failed. The biggest mistake was trying to learn the whole language and apply the whole language to the problem. The utility of the language doesn't compensate for the cognitive burden. I would have been better served by using ML (with some C), or Rexx (with some C). Good C++ has an abstract top level that isn't much different than a scripting language in expressivity. Now something like a Lua +Rust can be more expressive, correct and fast.
- pjmlp 11y ago
  Although I would also favour ML over C++, if you look its derivatives, OCaml, Haskell and so on, they really aren't much smaller than C++. C++ biggest problem are all the design decisions to fit into C's tooling and its compatibility.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
  Early 90s c++ was pretty unfortunate all around.
agmcleod 11y ago
I find this a lot more encouraging to read. Most gamedevs I see talking about C++ mention to avoid boost & templating, how STL is bad, etc. How they have to write their own more efficient version of vectorm or their own allocator. There are things I like things about C. I find malloc & free fairly understandable, where as a lot of the newer pointer arithmetic in C++11 can be a bit overwhelming. That said as someone who hasnt done a lot of C or C++, i'd like to think learning the new way is best, otherwise it's hard to know where to start.
- pjmlp 11y ago
  The thing with game devs is that they only change tooling when forced to do. In the 80's Assembly was the only way to go, if you were targeting consoles and home systems. Higher level languages were the managed languages of the day. When the SDK started to push for C, like on first PS, they were forced to move. Still the code was pretty much inline Assembly wrapped in C, until they were confident to write more and more in C. Similarly when around PS 3 time, the SDKs were moving into C++, the majority took advantage of the C compatibility and used only as much C++ as required by the SDKs. Only recently some started to do the transition to embrace C++. Likewise if in the future language X becomes the only way to target games for platform Y, and they a market that they need to be in, they will eventually adopt it. Of course writting big chunks in C++ until they can be convinced it is ok to just use X.
  - agmcleod 11y ago
    Ah interesting. I have to admit I thought the C++ dominance had been around for longer than that.
lmm 11y ago
> C++ is probably the most gigantic and complex language I am likely to ever use... but you don't have to use the vast majority of it if you don't want to. If you want to stick with C-style coding, you pretty much can, if you don't want OO or STL or ++11/14 features -- nothing is forcing you to write those features into your code. But when you want access to them, there they are The features are dependent on each other though. The flipside of my example elsewhere in the thread: if you want to use templates to eliminate repeated code, you more-or-less need to make any classes you want to template over use RAII (or else do very error-prone partial template specialization to ensure your things are initialized and deininitialized correctly). So then you have to use exceptions, because if you're doing complex logic in your constructors then you need a way to report failure. So then you have to make your code exception-safe, which means making everything else RAII.
- hellofunk 11y ago
  Well, if you are going to choose just one feature to reach for in C++, template metaprogramming is probably not going to be it. Even a lot of devs who are very comfortable with other C++ tools and idioms don't write, if any, template code. I wouldn't think that someone would avoid all the other C++ features, but then willingly go down the road of writing templates.

72deluxe 11y ago

True, but I think a lot of the encouragement is to move away from writing C++ like it is C because we really don't want to encourage people to write with dangerous approaches anymore (like you can if you write C++ like it is C). I work with a few who write their C++ like it is C (pointers thrown around, no const-correctness, memcpy instead of copy constructors etc. etc.) and it is horrible to read. There is no indication of lifetimes of objects, nor any indication of ownership. No RAII, no exceptions, nothing. It is dangerous. You are rewarded for writing C++ safely because you won't have to fix any bugs and you can offload all the work onto the compiler for checking types and safety for you. Like you, though, I don't understand people who get red in the face about C++ and go into a profane rage. It is just a language after all.

ratboy666 11y ago
Guilty. Of writing C++ as if it were C. Sometimes even with classes. Yes, I use memcpy instead of copy constructors. I find "modern C++" horrible to read. Indication of object lifetime? Ownership? Um... why? If the development support does not include a garbage collector, I have to be very careful about these things. And, I am. Very careful indeed. I just use the approach I do in C, and assume NOTHING from C++. Honestly, I do NOT assume that the language system, compiler or run-time can do it properly. I have been bitten too many times. I do presume a garbage collector at the very next level up. Yes, you may find my code "horrible to read". And, yes, I have gone into profane rages over C++ code. It happens when the code bullies me -- with hopeless error messages for simple typos. When simple changes cause the application to no longer link. When simple changes cause massive explosions in object size. In fact C++ is so complex, it encourages cargo cult programming. Not just use of libraries, but enforced cargo-cult when USING the libraries. Because, raisons. Not just a language -- hell-spawn. Sorry, "modern hell-spawn".
- 72deluxe 11y ago
  The problem is that if you were hit by a bus, the next guy maintaining the code has to know about where everything is cleaned up and has to know all of the secrets that you know and that you decided you knew better than the compiler in areas. This makes for unmaintainable code. Ownership is very important because if you don't know who owns it, who will clean it up?? If you don't know how long an object will be around because you've got a pointer, it is now a dangling pointer and attempts to use it will cause chaos. So object lifetime is important too. The error messages are usually quite helpful. clang's messages are more helpful for gcc, I have found. C++ is complex, but you can still write safe code without using any of the complexities.
- vvanders 11y ago
  If you hate the idea of ownership and lifetimes I want to stay the hell away from any codebase you work on.
  - ratboy666 11y ago
    No, what I "hate" is the idea that C++ promotes "automatic" management of "ownership and lifetime" without a garbage collector. Which works, except when it doesn't. Which results in stuff like reference counting in the codebase. Which, of course, changes on a whim. Example: the CEF3 library (chromium embedded framework). Reference counted objects. Which requires source code changes depending on the version of CEF 3 being used. Requires VERY deep analysis to determine what to change in the using code. Really -- because the objects participate in a multi-threaded library. So, most code ends up as "cargo cult". Since my code doesn't fit into the CEF3 object model, I do the contortions needed -- building another layer.
    - vvanders 11y ago
      Ownership and Lifetimes != Reference counting. Reference counting is code smell that you don't have a clear ownership model. Take a look a Rust for something more along the lines of what I'm talking about. There's been quite a few people who've re-written their C/C++ code to Rust only to find out that they didn't have a clear ownership model and found architectural improvements because of it.
pjmlp 11y ago
This is why although I like C++ a lot, nowadays my day job is spent between JVM and .NET languages, with C++ only when I need to step out of them. From what I know, having the chance to ever find a job on my area where one can use proper C++ is very thin.
pcwalton 11y ago
> You are rewarded for writing C++ safely because you won't have to fix any bugs and you can offload all the work onto the compiler for checking types and safety for you. But that's not the case. No shipping version of C++ is memory safe. In fact, this is exactly what the article is about.
alfalfasprout 11y ago
Here's the thing, there is a nice way (well, more than one) to blend highly tuned low-level C code with clean, modern C++. I have to do it: I work on high performance algorithmic trading systems. You want to keep raw pointers, etc. confined to private class members, initialize memory only within the constructor (if possible), and free memory at the destructor. The user/public API should not expose unsafe stuff. With all this, RAII will give you a nice expectation of lifetime, etc. Plus you're able to use something like tcmalloc. I often find a difficult issue arises when you have a large data structure that you want to free before it goes out of scope (to reclaim some memory). In this case, adding a "clear" method that frees the internals is handy. The destructor will call clear() but you can call it at any time. No harm done if it's called twice. The next thing is const-correctness: if you follow it then any C-like code underneath should be relatively safe. Not using copy constructors is just awful. Memcpy has a time and a place: at the low level (eg; I use it for serializing to a buffer). If you're using memcpy for classes you're probably doing something wrong. Exceptions are a place where you see a wide gamut of safety. Some people don't use them at all: which isn't great. Others add hundreds of lines of code by wrapping everything in a try/catch. Not sure where I stand here, honestly. There's a point where you're catching exceptions that just aren't going to happen...

blub 11y ago

He's not just any guy, but the guy that created a whole website, C++ FQA, dedicated to trying to explain how C++ is terrible. Or maybe he just shares the same name with him. Anyway, it's difficult to have a reasonable discussion over a topic where said topic has religious dimensions for one of the involved parties.

_yosefk 11y ago
That's me alright, but I think my comment in this instance didn't warrant the claim about "religious dimensions." Having a firm opinion and using (OMG) the word "shit" when stating it does not mean it's a religion, and I'm very secularly using much of C++11 as I said, and I was among the people pushing for the upgrade where I work.
- blub 11y ago
  Maybe it was too strong of a word, but... I have the impression that C++ topics are more emotional than they need to be. In the end it's just a programming language.

sitkack 11y ago

I tried being a C++ programmer back along time ago (1992-1995) and I failed. The biggest mistake was trying to learn the whole language and apply the whole language to the problem. The utility of the language doesn't compensate for the cognitive burden. I would have been better served by using ML (with some C), or Rexx (with some C). Good C++ has an abstract top level that isn't much different than a scripting language in expressivity. Now something like a Lua +Rust can be more expressive, correct and fast.

pjmlp 11y ago
Although I would also favour ML over C++, if you look its derivatives, OCaml, Haskell and so on, they really aren't much smaller than C++. C++ biggest problem are all the design decisions to fit into C's tooling and its compatibility.
GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
Early 90s c++ was pretty unfortunate all around.

agmcleod 11y ago

I find this a lot more encouraging to read. Most gamedevs I see talking about C++ mention to avoid boost & templating, how STL is bad, etc. How they have to write their own more efficient version of vectorm or their own allocator. There are things I like things about C. I find malloc & free fairly understandable, where as a lot of the newer pointer arithmetic in C++11 can be a bit overwhelming. That said as someone who hasnt done a lot of C or C++, i'd like to think learning the new way is best, otherwise it's hard to know where to start.

pjmlp 11y ago
The thing with game devs is that they only change tooling when forced to do. In the 80's Assembly was the only way to go, if you were targeting consoles and home systems. Higher level languages were the managed languages of the day. When the SDK started to push for C, like on first PS, they were forced to move. Still the code was pretty much inline Assembly wrapped in C, until they were confident to write more and more in C. Similarly when around PS 3 time, the SDKs were moving into C++, the majority took advantage of the C compatibility and used only as much C++ as required by the SDKs. Only recently some started to do the transition to embrace C++. Likewise if in the future language X becomes the only way to target games for platform Y, and they a market that they need to be in, they will eventually adopt it. Of course writting big chunks in C++ until they can be convinced it is ok to just use X.
- agmcleod 11y ago
  Ah interesting. I have to admit I thought the C++ dominance had been around for longer than that.

lmm 11y ago

> C++ is probably the most gigantic and complex language I am likely to ever use... but you don't have to use the vast majority of it if you don't want to. If you want to stick with C-style coding, you pretty much can, if you don't want OO or STL or ++11/14 features -- nothing is forcing you to write those features into your code. But when you want access to them, there they are The features are dependent on each other though. The flipside of my example elsewhere in the thread: if you want to use templates to eliminate repeated code, you more-or-less need to make any classes you want to template over use RAII (or else do very error-prone partial template specialization to ensure your things are initialized and deininitialized correctly). So then you have to use exceptions, because if you're doing complex logic in your constructors then you need a way to report failure. So then you have to make your code exception-safe, which means making everything else RAII.

hellofunk 11y ago
Well, if you are going to choose just one feature to reach for in C++, template metaprogramming is probably not going to be it. Even a lot of devs who are very comfortable with other C++ tools and idioms don't write, if any, template code. I wouldn't think that someone would avoid all the other C++ features, but then willingly go down the road of writing templates.