5 ms·

Surely you are joking right? I just can't imagine one has to go through all those books to be proficient in one language.

by mi_lk 9y ago

zelos 9y ago
If you read, understood and remembered all of those you'd be way beyond just proficient in C++.
fsloth 9y ago
One is never proficient in C++. One merely... learns to adjust ones ignorance to practical constraints. I.e you choose such a subset that you can deal with it. But which subset? Hence, a shitload of books. The point is to read about all sorts of styles and pick whatever feels practical for you. And I'm completely serious. I've earned my living with C++ for over a decade, am considered a valuable contributor and still... so clueless towards so many details.
- lloydjatkinson 9y ago
  Then C++ has failed. If it has so many competing standards and subsets, then it is too fragmented. This is why when you see C++ written in one standard it looks like a whole other language when you look at other C++. If after a decade there are so many details still obscured from you, then that's pretty much again a fault of the overly-engineered and tacked on language called C++. Other mainstream language work fine and allow you to still write clean and modern code without having literally dozens of subsets and implementations. So why is it that C++ feels the need to have so many?
  - pjmlp 9y ago
    Then by that point of view, C (hello UB), Python, Ruby, JavaScript, Java, among many other programming languages have failed as well. Using my favorite scripting language (Python) as an example, I always need to check which version is installed on a given OS and then validate at https://docs.python.org/ https://docs.python.org/ if all the features I want are actually available on that version. Not to mention CPython, PyPy, Cython, JPython differences on top of that.
  - fsloth 9y ago
    We use C++ because of the C++ the ecosystem not because of the C++ the language. There really is no other language that fits all of the constraints C++ fits. If there was, I'd be using it. And before you ask 'Have you looked into...' the answer is yes, unless the language is obscure, in which case it lacks the ecological robustness of C++.
    - FiveDegrees 9y ago
      I hope Jai ends up being made interoperable with C++.
      - imron 9y ago
        I just hope Jai end up being released. jblow, I know you read HN, lots of us are looking forward to Jai.
        cr0sh 9y ago
        Gotta say I'm looking forward to it too, even though I might not ever use it. There are some things I disagree on with it, but most of those are orthogonal to the domain of which the language was meant to be applied, namely game programming. For that end, I can get behind those. That said - the main things I don't like are the lack of exception handling, and no automatic memory management. I understand for game programming why these aren't going to be a part of the language. At the same time, I fear that without these, it may relegate the language to something of a niche language only used for game development and nothing else. While it is laudable to think that these features aren't needed, there is a reason they became available - and it mainly has to do with the fact that even "good programmers" aren't "perfect programmers"; we are all humans, not machines. Features that make the language stand out, though, are the ideas of functions that run at compile time, which allow for a build system that is written in Jai and builds on compile (so you don't need to learn some other "language" just for building your world), the whole AOS/SOA mess that is made simple to implement with only one keyword (kinda neat!), plus the whole "uplift" of code from inner to global usage, with minimal changes, as it morphs from "lines of code" to "capture" to "anonymous function", etc - that's pretty powerful. The inverted typed declaration syntax for variables and functions will take some getting used to, but that part is very minor. There's one part on this that I question - namely that variables are declared like: name: type = value ...so: foo: int = 0; ...but functions are defined as: name := () -> return_type {} ie: bar := () -> float {} I would have thought that a function would be defined as: name: return_type = () {} so: baz: float = () {} ...thus more like the variable declarations (plus it would allow for turning a variable into a function easier, perhaps). There is probably something about compiler design, parsing, etc that I don't know that pre-empted things? That would be my first guess as to why this difference exists, but I would love to hear the actual reason from the author, if he reads this.
  - flohofwoe 9y ago
    On the contrary, the one nice thing about C++ is that it is 'multi-paradigm'. Don't like boost's philosophy of overengineering every little detail? Then don't use boost. C++ without exceptions, RTTI, or even the whole STL? Perfectly fine. Other languages don't have this freedom. It's a double-edged sword of course. Less freedom also means wasting less time with pointless discussions about which combination of C++ features is 'right'.
    - imron 9y ago
      > Then don't use boost. After using boost in several projects and regretting it each time (slow compile times, painful to configure), I finally learned my lesson and "don't use boost" is now one of my guiding principles when programming in C++.
      - ndh2 9y ago
        While I would mostly agree, I would humbly suggest a small nudge in perspective: Boost does not equal Boost. While I passionately hate most of Boost, I find boost::optional to be one of the most useful template classes. So you shouldn't treat Boost as one library, but as a collection of different libraries. Same goes for STL in my opinion.
        imron 9y ago
        I think boost has definitely had a positive impact on c++ and the fact that large amounts of it are now in (or had a major influence on) the std library certainly makes it much easier to forgoe using it.
    - nurettin 9y ago
      I use boost filesystem and string algos. I can't say they slow down compilation that much. And they save a lot of typing.
      - VHRanger 9y ago
        Theres filesystem TS in c++17. Also experimental/filesystem in all compilers except gcc since 2014
  - ksk 9y ago
    Which other systems language allows the same style of programming while giving the same performance? You pretty much know if and when you need C++ - which is rare unless you live near the hardware. That said, I'm not sure how you wish to engage people here with that comment. Do you have any specific criticisms of C++ (there are many!) that we can discuss beyond your personal feelings?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - sqeaky 9y ago
      I would disagree that C++ is only useful "near the hardware" I have spent the bulk of my career not near the hardware and have found C++ to be the most useful of languages I have learned. My current job is as close to the hardware as I have gotten, I am even on the "Firmware Team" and I feel pretty removed. If you need interop between two languages you almost always have to drop to C, if you want to do that while keeping high level concepts like object, then use C++. If you need more performance and you have already maxed out perf in some "higher" language. Then a naive C++ rewrite is often just faster. Then when you start breaking out C++ profiling tools and carefully managing memory you get insane speeds that didn't seem possible before. With some of new stuff in C++11/14/17 it is actually fun to work in C++, not as fun as Ruby... up until 3d things start appearing on the screen.
      - ksk 9y ago
        >I would disagree that C++ is only useful "near the hardware" Okay, but I didn't say that? I said C++ has limited uses, _unless_ you're near the hardware, where its much more common. You can disagree, but its better if you disagree with what I actually said :P But to your reply, Personally, I don't agree that C++ is fun to work with. Like any other language, I tolerate it as and when I need to. And like I said in the previous reply, sometimes C++ is the only choice, and you accept that and do the best you can. I've found that good tooling does reduce some of the headaches, especially when it comes to debugging (although stepping through optimized production code still remains a giant pain in the ass). I'm happy that the language is progressing and with all of the new features, its like a cafeteria where you chose what you like and what works for you and your team. I certainly don't agree with all the advice that the C++ cheerleaders put out on the internet about inserting every new feature into production code. Personally I take a very conservative approach and only use features that have shown tobe useful across the entire dev cycle of - helping to conceptualize an idea, being easy to reason about by everyone on the team, being easy to debug, and being reliable enough for 24/7 execution (though this applies more to the library side of things). My code runs automation machinery, and it has to have zero bugs in it. I choose C++ because currently its the best tool for the job.
- pjmlp 9y ago
  My subset is the one that I require to interoperate with managed languages (Java, .NET, Swift,...) and makes me feel as I if am using Ada/Turbo Pascal with curly bracket syntax instead.
- theHazardMan 9y ago
  My philosophy is "If you have fewer than 5 years' experience with C++ and think you are an expert, you just don't know how much you don't know. If you have more than 5 years', then you're a liar."
  - jeeyoungk 9y ago
    Only time I had C++ on my resume was when I was looking for my first internship and was desperate to pad my resume with _something_... Hey, I took a course in C++, so I can put it down, right? I soon removed it afterwards after knowing what "knowing c++" implied.
  - geezerjay 9y ago
    > "If you have fewer than 5 years' experience with C++ and think you are an expert, you just don't know how much you don't know. That pretty much applies to any subject. Some bachelor's degrees take longer than that, and no one becomes an expert with a bachelor's or even a master's degree.
- 0xbear 9y ago
  Therein lies its strength. It filters out both those too weak and those who want to appear smarter than they are. The first group just never can get anything done in C++, the second writes code they can't understand themselves 3 months after they wrote it, so it either ends up in Boost or nobody uses it.
ensiferum 9y ago
Well no, but if you do and can retain even some of that knowledge it's very helpful :)
seanwilson 9y ago
> Surely you are joking right? I just can't imagine one has to go through all those books to be proficient in one language. It's easily one of the most complex mainstream languages and one with the most pitfalls which is why higher level languages are preferable when feasible.
kabdib 9y ago
Nope, that's a pretty good stack. Of course, you don't (A) read the books, and then (B) start programming. You read a chapter, try stuff out, read another chapter, read some code, try more stuff out, read a LOT more code . . . and about ten years later you're a very good C++ programmer. I'm not kidding. I've got several linear feet of C++ books on my bookshelf, have read most of those books, and I consider myself an average C++ programmer, not a language guru by any means.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
slavik81 9y ago
You don't. By the time you've read a few of those books, the rest will be rather boring. I also wouldn't bother with Effective STL or More Effective C++. They're ancillary to the main books of that series and are somewhat outdated.
rezashirazian 9y ago
Am I the only who think reading 15 books to be proficient in a modern, non-trivial language like C++ seems reasonable?
PopsiclePete 9y ago
This is C++ we're talking about. There's roughly 28 people in the world who understand it completely.
geezerjay 9y ago
> I just can't imagine one has to go through all those books to be proficient in one language. I don't know if you know the meaning of "proficiency", but if you are trying to argue that it takes work to become an expert in a subject then it seems you aren't aware of what being an expert actually entails. Moreover, Those books appear to be a lot mainlyl because the subjects covered by half of them actually overlap.

Surely you are joking right? I just can't imagine one has to go through all those books to be proficient in one language.

by mi_lk 9y ago

Surely you are joking right? I just can't imagine one has to go through all those books to be proficient in one language.

zelos 9y ago

If you read, understood and remembered all of those you'd be way beyond just proficient in C++.

fsloth 9y ago

One is never proficient in C++. One merely... learns to adjust ones ignorance to practical constraints. I.e you choose such a subset that you can deal with it. But which subset? Hence, a shitload of books. The point is to read about all sorts of styles and pick whatever feels practical for you. And I'm completely serious. I've earned my living with C++ for over a decade, am considered a valuable contributor and still... so clueless towards so many details.

lloydjatkinson 9y ago
Then C++ has failed. If it has so many competing standards and subsets, then it is too fragmented. This is why when you see C++ written in one standard it looks like a whole other language when you look at other C++. If after a decade there are so many details still obscured from you, then that's pretty much again a fault of the overly-engineered and tacked on language called C++. Other mainstream language work fine and allow you to still write clean and modern code without having literally dozens of subsets and implementations. So why is it that C++ feels the need to have so many?
- pjmlp 9y ago
  Then by that point of view, C (hello UB), Python, Ruby, JavaScript, Java, among many other programming languages have failed as well. Using my favorite scripting language (Python) as an example, I always need to check which version is installed on a given OS and then validate at https://docs.python.org/ https://docs.python.org/ if all the features I want are actually available on that version. Not to mention CPython, PyPy, Cython, JPython differences on top of that.
- fsloth 9y ago
  We use C++ because of the C++ the ecosystem not because of the C++ the language. There really is no other language that fits all of the constraints C++ fits. If there was, I'd be using it. And before you ask 'Have you looked into...' the answer is yes, unless the language is obscure, in which case it lacks the ecological robustness of C++.
  - FiveDegrees 9y ago
    I hope Jai ends up being made interoperable with C++.
    - imron 9y ago
      I just hope Jai end up being released. jblow, I know you read HN, lots of us are looking forward to Jai.
      - cr0sh 9y ago
        Gotta say I'm looking forward to it too, even though I might not ever use it. There are some things I disagree on with it, but most of those are orthogonal to the domain of which the language was meant to be applied, namely game programming. For that end, I can get behind those. That said - the main things I don't like are the lack of exception handling, and no automatic memory management. I understand for game programming why these aren't going to be a part of the language. At the same time, I fear that without these, it may relegate the language to something of a niche language only used for game development and nothing else. While it is laudable to think that these features aren't needed, there is a reason they became available - and it mainly has to do with the fact that even "good programmers" aren't "perfect programmers"; we are all humans, not machines. Features that make the language stand out, though, are the ideas of functions that run at compile time, which allow for a build system that is written in Jai and builds on compile (so you don't need to learn some other "language" just for building your world), the whole AOS/SOA mess that is made simple to implement with only one keyword (kinda neat!), plus the whole "uplift" of code from inner to global usage, with minimal changes, as it morphs from "lines of code" to "capture" to "anonymous function", etc - that's pretty powerful. The inverted typed declaration syntax for variables and functions will take some getting used to, but that part is very minor. There's one part on this that I question - namely that variables are declared like: name: type = value ...so: foo: int = 0; ...but functions are defined as: name := () -> return_type {} ie: bar := () -> float {} I would have thought that a function would be defined as: name: return_type = () {} so: baz: float = () {} ...thus more like the variable declarations (plus it would allow for turning a variable into a function easier, perhaps). There is probably something about compiler design, parsing, etc that I don't know that pre-empted things? That would be my first guess as to why this difference exists, but I would love to hear the actual reason from the author, if he reads this.
- flohofwoe 9y ago
  On the contrary, the one nice thing about C++ is that it is 'multi-paradigm'. Don't like boost's philosophy of overengineering every little detail? Then don't use boost. C++ without exceptions, RTTI, or even the whole STL? Perfectly fine. Other languages don't have this freedom. It's a double-edged sword of course. Less freedom also means wasting less time with pointless discussions about which combination of C++ features is 'right'.
  - imron 9y ago
    > Then don't use boost. After using boost in several projects and regretting it each time (slow compile times, painful to configure), I finally learned my lesson and "don't use boost" is now one of my guiding principles when programming in C++.
    - ndh2 9y ago
      While I would mostly agree, I would humbly suggest a small nudge in perspective: Boost does not equal Boost. While I passionately hate most of Boost, I find boost::optional to be one of the most useful template classes. So you shouldn't treat Boost as one library, but as a collection of different libraries. Same goes for STL in my opinion.
      - imron 9y ago
        I think boost has definitely had a positive impact on c++ and the fact that large amounts of it are now in (or had a major influence on) the std library certainly makes it much easier to forgoe using it.
  - nurettin 9y ago
    I use boost filesystem and string algos. I can't say they slow down compilation that much. And they save a lot of typing.
    - VHRanger 9y ago
      Theres filesystem TS in c++17. Also experimental/filesystem in all compilers except gcc since 2014
- ksk 9y ago
  Which other systems language allows the same style of programming while giving the same performance? You pretty much know if and when you need C++ - which is rare unless you live near the hardware. That said, I'm not sure how you wish to engage people here with that comment. Do you have any specific criticisms of C++ (there are many!) that we can discuss beyond your personal feelings?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - sqeaky 9y ago
    I would disagree that C++ is only useful "near the hardware" I have spent the bulk of my career not near the hardware and have found C++ to be the most useful of languages I have learned. My current job is as close to the hardware as I have gotten, I am even on the "Firmware Team" and I feel pretty removed. If you need interop between two languages you almost always have to drop to C, if you want to do that while keeping high level concepts like object, then use C++. If you need more performance and you have already maxed out perf in some "higher" language. Then a naive C++ rewrite is often just faster. Then when you start breaking out C++ profiling tools and carefully managing memory you get insane speeds that didn't seem possible before. With some of new stuff in C++11/14/17 it is actually fun to work in C++, not as fun as Ruby... up until 3d things start appearing on the screen.
    - ksk 9y ago
      >I would disagree that C++ is only useful "near the hardware" Okay, but I didn't say that? I said C++ has limited uses, _unless_ you're near the hardware, where its much more common. You can disagree, but its better if you disagree with what I actually said :P But to your reply, Personally, I don't agree that C++ is fun to work with. Like any other language, I tolerate it as and when I need to. And like I said in the previous reply, sometimes C++ is the only choice, and you accept that and do the best you can. I've found that good tooling does reduce some of the headaches, especially when it comes to debugging (although stepping through optimized production code still remains a giant pain in the ass). I'm happy that the language is progressing and with all of the new features, its like a cafeteria where you chose what you like and what works for you and your team. I certainly don't agree with all the advice that the C++ cheerleaders put out on the internet about inserting every new feature into production code. Personally I take a very conservative approach and only use features that have shown tobe useful across the entire dev cycle of - helping to conceptualize an idea, being easy to reason about by everyone on the team, being easy to debug, and being reliable enough for 24/7 execution (though this applies more to the library side of things). My code runs automation machinery, and it has to have zero bugs in it. I choose C++ because currently its the best tool for the job.
pjmlp 9y ago
My subset is the one that I require to interoperate with managed languages (Java, .NET, Swift,...) and makes me feel as I if am using Ada/Turbo Pascal with curly bracket syntax instead.
theHazardMan 9y ago
My philosophy is "If you have fewer than 5 years' experience with C++ and think you are an expert, you just don't know how much you don't know. If you have more than 5 years', then you're a liar."
- jeeyoungk 9y ago
  Only time I had C++ on my resume was when I was looking for my first internship and was desperate to pad my resume with _something_... Hey, I took a course in C++, so I can put it down, right? I soon removed it afterwards after knowing what "knowing c++" implied.
- geezerjay 9y ago
  > "If you have fewer than 5 years' experience with C++ and think you are an expert, you just don't know how much you don't know. That pretty much applies to any subject. Some bachelor's degrees take longer than that, and no one becomes an expert with a bachelor's or even a master's degree.
0xbear 9y ago
Therein lies its strength. It filters out both those too weak and those who want to appear smarter than they are. The first group just never can get anything done in C++, the second writes code they can't understand themselves 3 months after they wrote it, so it either ends up in Boost or nobody uses it.

ensiferum 9y ago

Well no, but if you do and can retain even some of that knowledge it's very helpful :)

seanwilson 9y ago

> Surely you are joking right? I just can't imagine one has to go through all those books to be proficient in one language. It's easily one of the most complex mainstream languages and one with the most pitfalls which is why higher level languages are preferable when feasible.

kabdib 9y ago

Nope, that's a pretty good stack. Of course, you don't (A) read the books, and then (B) start programming. You read a chapter, try stuff out, read another chapter, read some code, try more stuff out, read a LOT more code . . . and about ten years later you're a very good C++ programmer. I'm not kidding. I've got several linear feet of C++ books on my bookshelf, have read most of those books, and I consider myself an average C++ programmer, not a language guru by any means.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

slavik81 9y ago

You don't. By the time you've read a few of those books, the rest will be rather boring. I also wouldn't bother with Effective STL or More Effective C++. They're ancillary to the main books of that series and are somewhat outdated.

rezashirazian 9y ago

Am I the only who think reading 15 books to be proficient in a modern, non-trivial language like C++ seems reasonable?

PopsiclePete 9y ago

This is C++ we're talking about. There's roughly 28 people in the world who understand it completely.

geezerjay 9y ago

> I just can't imagine one has to go through all those books to be proficient in one language. I don't know if you know the meaning of "proficiency", but if you are trying to argue that it takes work to become an expert in a subject then it seems you aren't aware of what being an expert actually entails. Moreover, Those books appear to be a lot mainlyl because the subjects covered by half of them actually overlap.