3 ms·
I was quite invested in C++ 1998 back in the day, but didn't keep in touch with the language much after 2003. I am now back into high-performance scientific co
by nextos 9y ago
I was quite invested in C++ 1998 back in the day, but didn't keep in touch with the language much after 2003.
I am now back into high-performance scientific computing, and I am glad to see C++ has evolved much, in pretty good ways. However, is it worth getting back into C++ when things like Julia and Rust are around? Or are these still too immature?
- pjmlp 9y agoDepends on the use case. For me, as native companion to Java and .NET stacks, Rust still cannot take C++'s place regarding mixed debugging experience, IDE integration, GUI designers support, distribution of binary binaries and most important making team mates or customers (specially their IT) accept yet another tool into the projects. For other people Rust is already mature enough and they are delivering production code with it. In any case, until Julia and Rust stop using LLVM as their backend, being confortable with C++ is a good idea.
- nextos 9y agoMy use case is rapid development of new statistical methods. Julia seems ideal in some ways, as performance can be quite close to C / C++ / Fortran, while the code is more high-level. I don't care about GUIs, distribution, teamwork or maintenance. Julia seems promising, and there are some nice usage stories already: https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/presentation/julia-in-parallel-and-high-performance-computing.pdf https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents... I am quite proficient with JVM-based stacks (Java, Scala & Clojure). But the level of performance, especially in terms of memory usage, cannot come anywhere close to C++.