5 ms·

I've had written a lot of C++ code 10 years ago. Before that, I've spent a good deal of time writing C. Ever since, and even though I've started to do Go 4-5 ye

by jondot 10y ago

I've had written a lot of C++ code 10 years ago. Before that, I've spent a good deal of time writing C. Ever since, and even though I've started to do Go 4-5 years ago, I wanted to "get back on the horse" with the C++14/17 movement. It's been a scary thought; I'm dreading to realize all the know-how's I once had known, that I've managed to forget. So in the meanwhile I've been looking at starter-projects, big C++ projects (somehow, there aren't small, simple ones) to understand how modern C++ projects should be _structured_ these days. To those looking at this negatively I say - this projects is great for what I've been looking for. You can take it and build a differently flavored server from it, and still have modern tooling (CMake, GTest). It is simple enough.

kbenson 10y ago
I knew enough C++ to be dangerous around the turn of the millennium (college), but haven't written anything in it since. I've often wanted to pick it back up, but the thought of putting that much effort into something that requires so much more effort to use safely than the languages I currently use has always kept it as a wish rather than reality. At this point, I think I've given up on C++, and I'll use Rust when I finally get around to going low-level again. If I'm going to give up the ease of an interpreted language, I might as well put a little more effort in and learn something that provides a bit more assurance for the work required. Then again, we'll see if I ever get around to it. It's not like I'm swimming in free time.
- jondot 10y ago
  I was (and am still) in the same situation. I managed to go the Rust path, just to realize I don't trust it will be valuable for the very long term (5y+) at this point. It'll be funny to save this comment and come back to it 3 years into the future. However C++14/17 is getting a ton of new features and a fresh effort to push it towards Rust's innovation. I wouldn't be surprised that if this energy continues, we'll see a lot of Rust in C++. What is completely certain, that 3 years into the future, if I look at this very comment I'm writing now, C++ will still be as common and valuable. Rust - not sure. I know I sound like a conservative dinosaur now (but trust me, I'm not), but this kind of thought process you get only after 20 years in the field, and I do apply it only for topics that deserve it (systems programming).
  - kbenson 10y ago
    That seems an entirely sensible stance. For me, there's a few other things that make me really want to use from Rust to ease some of the pain points of writing a language that low (error/null handling, destructuring match), so I'll stick with Rust for now. Worst case, I may need to apply my Rust experience to C++ later, but with the new features you are referring to and I keep hearing about, those features seem to be increasingly like what I would be doing in Rust, so there should be a lot of overlap of concepts and idioms by then.

by jondot 10y ago

kbenson 10y ago

I knew enough C++ to be dangerous around the turn of the millennium (college), but haven't written anything in it since. I've often wanted to pick it back up, but the thought of putting that much effort into something that requires so much more effort to use safely than the languages I currently use has always kept it as a wish rather than reality. At this point, I think I've given up on C++, and I'll use Rust when I finally get around to going low-level again. If I'm going to give up the ease of an interpreted language, I might as well put a little more effort in and learn something that provides a bit more assurance for the work required. Then again, we'll see if I ever get around to it. It's not like I'm swimming in free time.

jondot 10y ago
I was (and am still) in the same situation. I managed to go the Rust path, just to realize I don't trust it will be valuable for the very long term (5y+) at this point. It'll be funny to save this comment and come back to it 3 years into the future. However C++14/17 is getting a ton of new features and a fresh effort to push it towards Rust's innovation. I wouldn't be surprised that if this energy continues, we'll see a lot of Rust in C++. What is completely certain, that 3 years into the future, if I look at this very comment I'm writing now, C++ will still be as common and valuable. Rust - not sure. I know I sound like a conservative dinosaur now (but trust me, I'm not), but this kind of thought process you get only after 20 years in the field, and I do apply it only for topics that deserve it (systems programming).
- kbenson 10y ago
  That seems an entirely sensible stance. For me, there's a few other things that make me really want to use from Rust to ease some of the pain points of writing a language that low (error/null handling, destructuring match), so I'll stick with Rust for now. Worst case, I may need to apply my Rust experience to C++ later, but with the new features you are referring to and I keep hearing about, those features seem to be increasingly like what I would be doing in Rust, so there should be a lot of overlap of concepts and idioms by then.