4 ms·

Ah, but I never called to delete any C/C++-based code! That's a strawman from you here. Also, especially I didn't say it's impossible to write anything substant

by akavel 9y ago

Ah, but I never called to delete any C/C++-based code! That's a strawman from you here. Also, especially I didn't say it's impossible to write anything substantial and/or useful in C++, oh, most certainly it is! But truly, I did and do claim it's humanly impossible to write anything safe in those. As to doing a programmer's job wrong, sorry if you got such impression. Wasn't my intention. C++ is powerful, and in many cases, the gains of using it overpower the risks. As to endangering people, now that's a different topic, and there are measures to protect people possible even in case of unreliable systems. But anyway that's really niche, your Windows/Linux/OSX laptop/PC won't really endanger people until you start hitting them with it, to first approximation. In the other case, like medical software, logic bugs can be I suppose orders of magnitude more dangerous to people than UB-related etc. bugs. I'm not saying C++ kills people. But I am saying it is producing inherently buggy software, on some level. I'd say it this way: improvements that Rust, Idris, Haskell & many other new languages (and also some old ones, actually, like reportedly Modula, Ada, etc.) try to bring to the table, are similar to what procedural programming or type systems brought over assembly. Resisting those improvements is... strange to me. [edit: I noticed I wasn't allowed to reply to some comments downstream a while before. I think this may be some kind of a signal for me to just STFU and drop the ball; even if not, I decide to just treat it so, I've said more than enough words already probably. Actually, biggest outburst of my posts on HN ever. I'm starting to think I might be having some kind of a PTSD w.r.t. C++. Anyone knows of some good therapy centers for recovering C++ veterans? :) ]

kazinator 9y ago
You can write large C++ programs that are quite safe, using only higher level abstractions (no pointers or explicit memory management). This doesn't require any fancy new C++; code written to C++98 (first ISO C++ standard) will do it just fine. For exmaple, in C++, we can put two strings together to make a new string without worrying about whether we have a buffer large enough to hold the result, and whether null termination is ensured and so on, or whether or not the original source strings are damaged in the process (they are not), or whether that memory will disappear when we return to the caller. It's just str1 + str2. I'm no C++ advocate, bu the fact is C++ code can look like a scripting language and be safe like one. C++ also has tools for isolating and managing the C-like semantics that a C++ program might contain. So even to clump together C and C++ as "C/C++" is not well considered. There isn't a "C/C++" language. If you post a message about C/C++ in the comp.lang.c newsgroup, put on your flame-proof asbestos underwear first.
- FRex 9y ago
  That's actually why I call BS on anyone who says "C/C++" while claiming to be a (former) C++ high level user (dabbling in it doesn't count, I dabbled Java, C# and PHP but it's not even on my CV because I don't consider myself anywhere near production level in them) and try to use "C and C++" myself. See: http://www.stroustrup.com/bs_faq.html#C-slash http://www.stroustrup.com/bs_faq.html#C-slash
- dbaupp 9y ago
  Higher level constructs like iterators, references and smart pointers are all relatively easy to misuse. It is definitely possible to have safe abstractions like std::string's + and they're one reason why C++ is an improvement over C, but there's still many other dangerous edges that are nearly impossible for a human to keep track of at scale.
  - kazinator 9y ago
    There are things in the C++ standard library that are not very well designed, yes. For instance, erasing from some containers causes undefined behavior if iterators that were created before the deletion continue to be used. Some of the various smart pointers for managing memory are not so smart; they have been redesigning new ones and deprecating old ones so many times now. It used to be "your code isn't exception safe: use auto_ptr, you dolt!". Then, "you idiot, don't use auto_ptr, use this instead" and so on. You can avoid all that by defining your own classes that do just what you need, use only the safe stuff from the standard (like the aforementioned strings) and write yourself a perfectly memory-safe, leak-free C++ program.
    - dbaupp 9y ago
      Even the modernest pointers unique_ptr and shared_ptr are dangerous (use after free/move and, e.g., ease of data-racing in the data, respectively). The problems with them are relatively fundamental to C++ and its idioms. The classes you define will need to avoid using fundamental C++ features like references too: anything pointer-like can lead to problems (including `this`) The "you (and the standard library, including the completely new parts) are holding it wrong" defence is tired, when it is so ridiculously easy to do so: it is okay and important to acknowledge that a tool is powerful but also has a pile of hard-to-avoid sharp edges.
FRex 9y ago
The call for removal of C++ is implicit or do you now say we keep extremely unsafe (in your eyes) software around and put our lives on the line? Lives and livelihoods do depend on C and C++ software in nuclear, medical, governmental, financial, etc. and somehow millions are not dying due to all this unsafe software. No software is 100% safe, even Erlang (another dear of HN but one that is enjoyed in a more civil environment than the "Go Rust, Fuck C++") is just "nine nines" reliable. You made C++ sound as bad as Java applets or something similar. Obviously anyone saying Java applets are unsafe, bad, etc. is telling you between the verses to not run any, ever. The words you used were very strong and made it sound like everything is buggy as hell while the bugs are minor and few and far between (relatively speaking, there are lots in some places but your browser and OS is not crashing or leaking your data to hackers on a daily basis, the situation is nowhere near tragic). Saying C and C++ are unsafe basically shitted on every programmer ever that picked them for anything important, kernel makers, browser makers, server makers, languages VM makers - all idiots, endangering people and property, writing unsafe software!

by akavel 9y ago

kazinator 9y ago

You can write large C++ programs that are quite safe, using only higher level abstractions (no pointers or explicit memory management). This doesn't require any fancy new C++; code written to C++98 (first ISO C++ standard) will do it just fine. For exmaple, in C++, we can put two strings together to make a new string without worrying about whether we have a buffer large enough to hold the result, and whether null termination is ensured and so on, or whether or not the original source strings are damaged in the process (they are not), or whether that memory will disappear when we return to the caller. It's just str1 + str2. I'm no C++ advocate, bu the fact is C++ code can look like a scripting language and be safe like one. C++ also has tools for isolating and managing the C-like semantics that a C++ program might contain. So even to clump together C and C++ as "C/C++" is not well considered. There isn't a "C/C++" language. If you post a message about C/C++ in the comp.lang.c newsgroup, put on your flame-proof asbestos underwear first.

FRex 9y ago
That's actually why I call BS on anyone who says "C/C++" while claiming to be a (former) C++ high level user (dabbling in it doesn't count, I dabbled Java, C# and PHP but it's not even on my CV because I don't consider myself anywhere near production level in them) and try to use "C and C++" myself. See: http://www.stroustrup.com/bs_faq.html#C-slash http://www.stroustrup.com/bs_faq.html#C-slash
dbaupp 9y ago
Higher level constructs like iterators, references and smart pointers are all relatively easy to misuse. It is definitely possible to have safe abstractions like std::string's + and they're one reason why C++ is an improvement over C, but there's still many other dangerous edges that are nearly impossible for a human to keep track of at scale.
- kazinator 9y ago
  There are things in the C++ standard library that are not very well designed, yes. For instance, erasing from some containers causes undefined behavior if iterators that were created before the deletion continue to be used. Some of the various smart pointers for managing memory are not so smart; they have been redesigning new ones and deprecating old ones so many times now. It used to be "your code isn't exception safe: use auto_ptr, you dolt!". Then, "you idiot, don't use auto_ptr, use this instead" and so on. You can avoid all that by defining your own classes that do just what you need, use only the safe stuff from the standard (like the aforementioned strings) and write yourself a perfectly memory-safe, leak-free C++ program.
  - dbaupp 9y ago
    Even the modernest pointers unique_ptr and shared_ptr are dangerous (use after free/move and, e.g., ease of data-racing in the data, respectively). The problems with them are relatively fundamental to C++ and its idioms. The classes you define will need to avoid using fundamental C++ features like references too: anything pointer-like can lead to problems (including `this`) The "you (and the standard library, including the completely new parts) are holding it wrong" defence is tired, when it is so ridiculously easy to do so: it is okay and important to acknowledge that a tool is powerful but also has a pile of hard-to-avoid sharp edges.

FRex 9y ago

The call for removal of C++ is implicit or do you now say we keep extremely unsafe (in your eyes) software around and put our lives on the line? Lives and livelihoods do depend on C and C++ software in nuclear, medical, governmental, financial, etc. and somehow millions are not dying due to all this unsafe software. No software is 100% safe, even Erlang (another dear of HN but one that is enjoyed in a more civil environment than the "Go Rust, Fuck C++") is just "nine nines" reliable. You made C++ sound as bad as Java applets or something similar. Obviously anyone saying Java applets are unsafe, bad, etc. is telling you between the verses to not run any, ever. The words you used were very strong and made it sound like everything is buggy as hell while the bugs are minor and few and far between (relatively speaking, there are lots in some places but your browser and OS is not crashing or leaking your data to hackers on a daily basis, the situation is nowhere near tragic). Saying C and C++ are unsafe basically shitted on every programmer ever that picked them for anything important, kernel makers, browser makers, server makers, languages VM makers - all idiots, endangering people and property, writing unsafe software!