3 ms·

No, not really. Complexity is not about the language: It's about how you use it. It's not necessarily Java's featureset that makes it so complex, it's its idiom

No, not really. Complexity is not about the language: It's about how you use it. It's not necessarily Java's featureset that makes it so complex, it's its idioms. C++'s lifetime rules, on most variables, are this: It's allocated until you say it isn't. Some of the vars might be refcounted or GCed, but with GC you've still got the same problem on your hands as finalizers, and refcounting can't handle cycles. Manual memory management is dramatically more error-prone than finalizers ever were (unless you're using RAII, but that's not entirely idiomatic, and cannot be). As for functions not being able to be passed as args, that's not simplicity, that's a straight up limitation. What makes a language simple is uniformity, simplicity, and consistency. Java has a good deal more of all of these than C++ Complexity in the language doesn't enable simplicity in programs, though, because now your program has to deal with 6000 different special cases. In any case, Lisp and Scheme are possibly the simplest languages, and are celebrated for their power, clarity, and the simplicity with which they can express programs.

MereInterest 10y ago
I'd be interested to hear why you say that RAII cannot be idiomatic. With `std::unique_ptr` and `std::shared_ptr` for handling pointers, `std::vector` for handling data arrays, `std::string` for handling char arrays, I would argue that modern C++ is very heavily RAII. At this point, if I have a class that cannot be declared on the stack, with cleanup handled by RAII, I consider it to be a broken class. Good point on limitations vs simplicity. I think that there are different forms of complexity. Some complexity is necessary, due to the nature of the underlying problem. Other complexity is incidental, being due to poor implementations. As an example of essential complexity, C++ has different declarations for stack-based variables and heap-based variables, while Java does not. This is because Java does not allow classes to be declared on the heap, and so it does not need an extra form of declaration. On the other hand, C++ definitely has lots of incidental complexity as well, mostly due to its long history. Having four different constructs for loops is incidental complexity. I agree that the idioms are what make Java programs be complicated, rather than the language itself. What I'm not sure on is how much those idioms are needed to overcome limitations in the language, and how much they are unnecessary parts of the culture. Oh, absolutely on Lisp. Lisp/Scheme are amazingly simple, and amazingly powerful. The one downside that I've found is that it doesn't correspond to the hardware as much. Much of C++'s complexity stems from trying to provide as many features as possible while still compiling down to reasonably fast code.
- junke 10y ago
  > The one downside that I've found is that it doesn't correspond to the hardware as much. The hardware keeps changing. What Lisp provides is a way to access low-level details when necessary, but with a default mode of operation that is managed (developer-friendly): GC, safety checks, arbitrary precision integers, etc. Like for all languages, a compiler can be told to try more optimizations if you want, and if you are ready to spend a little more work on it. In some implementations, you can extend the primitives known the compiler to emit better assembly code (e.g. https://www.pvk.ca/Blog/2014/08/16/how-to-define-new-intrinsics-in-sbcl/ https://www.pvk.ca/Blog/2014/08/16/how-to-define-new-intrins...).
- qwertyuiop924 10y ago
  Well then, that's your problem: C++ is trying to be both low-level and high level at the same time. This isn't a good idea, IMHO. What I mean is that while some amount of RAII is a common idiom in C++, It's rare for a program to use RAII fully, as many C++ idioms conflict with it. Mind, I'm not an expert, so I might be wrong, but that was my understanding. AFAICT, if RAII was used all the time, idomatic C++ would look a lot more like Rust.
  - pjmlp 10y ago
    > Well then, that's your problem: C++ is trying to be both low-level and high level at the same time. This isn't a good idea, IMHO. It is a very good idea and C++ isn't alone there. Professional Basic dialects, Turbo Pascal, Delphi, Modula-2, Modula-2+, Modula-3, Ada, D, Rust, Mesa/Cedar all share this idea that you can program at both levels, depending on the needs of the use case.
    - qwertyuiop924 10y ago
      C++ has less distinction though, and it's so huge that even Bjarne can't keep the whole language in his head. The net result is that many people use the low-level parts of the language for high-level work and vice-versa.

MereInterest 10y ago

I'd be interested to hear why you say that RAII cannot be idiomatic. With `std::unique_ptr` and `std::shared_ptr` for handling pointers, `std::vector` for handling data arrays, `std::string` for handling char arrays, I would argue that modern C++ is very heavily RAII. At this point, if I have a class that cannot be declared on the stack, with cleanup handled by RAII, I consider it to be a broken class. Good point on limitations vs simplicity. I think that there are different forms of complexity. Some complexity is necessary, due to the nature of the underlying problem. Other complexity is incidental, being due to poor implementations. As an example of essential complexity, C++ has different declarations for stack-based variables and heap-based variables, while Java does not. This is because Java does not allow classes to be declared on the heap, and so it does not need an extra form of declaration. On the other hand, C++ definitely has lots of incidental complexity as well, mostly due to its long history. Having four different constructs for loops is incidental complexity. I agree that the idioms are what make Java programs be complicated, rather than the language itself. What I'm not sure on is how much those idioms are needed to overcome limitations in the language, and how much they are unnecessary parts of the culture. Oh, absolutely on Lisp. Lisp/Scheme are amazingly simple, and amazingly powerful. The one downside that I've found is that it doesn't correspond to the hardware as much. Much of C++'s complexity stems from trying to provide as many features as possible while still compiling down to reasonably fast code.

junke 10y ago
> The one downside that I've found is that it doesn't correspond to the hardware as much. The hardware keeps changing. What Lisp provides is a way to access low-level details when necessary, but with a default mode of operation that is managed (developer-friendly): GC, safety checks, arbitrary precision integers, etc. Like for all languages, a compiler can be told to try more optimizations if you want, and if you are ready to spend a little more work on it. In some implementations, you can extend the primitives known the compiler to emit better assembly code (e.g. https://www.pvk.ca/Blog/2014/08/16/how-to-define-new-intrinsics-in-sbcl/ https://www.pvk.ca/Blog/2014/08/16/how-to-define-new-intrins...).
qwertyuiop924 10y ago
Well then, that's your problem: C++ is trying to be both low-level and high level at the same time. This isn't a good idea, IMHO. What I mean is that while some amount of RAII is a common idiom in C++, It's rare for a program to use RAII fully, as many C++ idioms conflict with it. Mind, I'm not an expert, so I might be wrong, but that was my understanding. AFAICT, if RAII was used all the time, idomatic C++ would look a lot more like Rust.
- pjmlp 10y ago
  > Well then, that's your problem: C++ is trying to be both low-level and high level at the same time. This isn't a good idea, IMHO. It is a very good idea and C++ isn't alone there. Professional Basic dialects, Turbo Pascal, Delphi, Modula-2, Modula-2+, Modula-3, Ada, D, Rust, Mesa/Cedar all share this idea that you can program at both levels, depending on the needs of the use case.
  - qwertyuiop924 10y ago
    C++ has less distinction though, and it's so huge that even Bjarne can't keep the whole language in his head. The net result is that many people use the low-level parts of the language for high-level work and vice-versa.