5 ms·

Bevor I'd use C++ I'd take a hard look at Go, figure out whether I really need C++ performance, or whether Go is just good enough. Go is rather performant and

• pleasecalllater 9y ago
  If you say that C++ is not memory safe you really don't know the modern C++. Of course you can use only `void *` everywhere... but you can also write your software in a totally different way. My C++ code has no pointers, just objects, which are automatically destroyed when I want to. The nice feature is that I know when the destructor is called, so the object will clear itself in a very nice way.
  • checker659 9y ago
    You're just wasting your energy man. People still think we live in the C++98 era.
  • nercury 9y ago
    It's futile battle though to achieve both performance and safety in C++: as an example, safety requires avoiding moves, using reference counting, while achieving performance means avoiding copies and passing occasional references around, among other things. That's why advertising C++ solution as fast does not work well with "but C++ can be safe too!".
    • bcjpjk 9y ago
      Moves can be safe, and copies can be dangerous. C++ is a language that can be used like a sawed-off shotgun propped against a developer's foot, and with a hair trigger. Granted, it does not _have_ to be used this way, but it can be. A good developer can be "safe by default" and can use profile-directed optimization to speed up areas that are performance critical. A great developer can build proofs that such performance improvements maintain safety guarantees. For the average developer, following modern C++ development practices creates code on par with other languages in terms of both safety and performance. For most languages, a lot can be done in terms of optimization, profiling, and security. Even in higher-level languages, an FFI is available to rewrite critical portions of code in a lower level language for performance improvements. Careful attention to detail can provide critical performance improvements in any language without compromising on safety. Getting there requires model checking or formal methods, but that is also becoming more of a part of modern development practices.
      • pjmlp 9y ago
        The problem is that many developers don't care, they just want to do something that works and move on. This is not specific to C++, but it is worse in C and C++ given the nature of these languages. It also doesn't help that management even cares less about QA than those devs.
    • fauigerzigerk 9y ago
      Not sure I necessarily agree with all your examples, but yes, this trade-off between safety and performance does exist in C++. It is particularily acute whenever you're forced to work with third party libraries that don't agree on a single approach to memory management. Rust is essentially a bet on the impossibility of working around that trade-off in C++. And they are right, it is impossible to close that gap completely. C++ simply doesn't have the language features to enforce all necessary ownership rules without a performance penalty. But I see trouble on the horizon for Rust, because that gap is quickly shrinking to its formally irreducible minimum as more C++ libraries are adopting a "modern" style. What's left of that gap may be too small to fit an entire new programming language built around fixing this single issue.
      • steveklabnik 9y ago
        Rust is more than just safety though. We had a huge community discussion last year: https://brson.github.io/fireflowers/ https://brson.github.io/fireflowers/
        • fauigerzigerk 9y ago
          I know it's more than that. But what you can't do, in my opinion, is love Rust for its other modern features and merely tolerate the new approach to memory management. Memory management in Rust is so dominant in terms of syntax and in terms of restrictions imposed on common idioms that it must be either embraced or rejected wholeheartedly. This is just my personal opinion obviously, not any sort of truth or prediction.
          • steveklabnik 9y ago
            Yeah, I totally hear you. I shared that opinion too, but, surprisingly enough, it seems to some degree that that's in the minority. Or at least, there's a pretty significant number of people who do "love Ruts for its other modern features and merely tolerate the new approach to memory management." I feel that way myself now, but figured that I was just too close to have a mainstream opinion about it :)
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
• flavio81 9y ago
  >Go is rather performant Go is slower than C++.