6 ms·

If you want to get involved and for your voice to have value then you have to educate yourself on the subject. Unfortunately too many of my former colleagues in

If you want to get involved and for your voice to have value then you have to educate yourself on the subject. Unfortunately too many of my former colleagues in the games industry (I'm now in a "games adjacent" industry too) fail to do this before complaining about C++ and have the same attitude of "it's not fair that I should have to know what I'm talking about before anyone will listen to my complaining seriously". Videos of all CppCon talks from the last several years are freely available on YouTube and if you took the time to watch them you'd see that many of them are by working programmers and not academics, quite a few of them in the games industry. You'd also learn that the committee is quite focused on simplifying the use of the language and on finding more usable ways to get the benefits of template metaprogramming. You would also find explanations of many features that are more accessible than standards papers and occasional explanations of why standardese is the way it is - nobody, even the most academic speakers, claims to find the standard the most accessible way to learn about a new feature.

iseeyoubydesign 8y ago
if they dont want to learn c++ then its fine , c++ will live on without them
foldr 8y ago
>"it's not fair that I should have to know what I'm talking about before anyone will listen to my complaining seriously". In a way it isn't fair. Most users of most programming languages don't know the language very well. So the views of these programmers are important.
- mattnewport 8y ago
  I've never really bought this argument. If you want to contribute to theoretical physics and be taken seriously it's expected that you have a solid grounding in physics. This principle is generally fairly widely applied. There are people on the standards committee who represent their companies and part of their role is to speak for the needs of the 'regular' programmers at their companies who may not be as well informed on the language - Titus Winters from Google takes that part of his role seriously. Bjarne Stroustrup teaches C++ to many students and one of his big focuses is on simplifying the language for beginners. To do a good job of simplifying something though you actually need to understand the problem space very well. Simple ain't easy. If someone wants to represent the 'average' programmer then the best way to do it would be to educate themselves on the language and the current state of standardization and then participate as an advocate for those programmers.
  - foldr 8y ago
    I wasn't talking about participating directly in the standards committee (and neither was the OP). It seems that the people who are supposed to be speaking for the regular programmers aren't doing a particularly good job.
    - mattnewport 8y ago
      It does seem that it seems that way. As someone who's pretty familiar with the current state of C++ and also has a long history in the games industry however I don't believe it actually is that way. I think the problem is more one of perception than reality but many of the complaints come from people who don't know what they don't know and I'm not sure the best way to fix that problem. The resources for them to educate themselves are freely available but a certain subset of them seem weirdly proudly stubborn about maintaining their ignorance. I'm not personally that interested in making it my mission to help educate people who don't want to be educated but perhaps it would be a valuable way for someone to get involved. People complaining on the basis of wrong information or misunderstandings aren't likely to be taken terribly seriously though.
      - foldr 8y ago
        You're very quick to call people ignorant and make uncharitable assumptions about their motivations. If your attitude is the common one, then it does seem that the opinions of regular C++ programmers are not valued by the people involved in the standards process.
        mattnewport 8y ago
        I'm quick to call people ignorant who demonstrate their ignorance. It's not even an insult - I'm ignorant about lots of things. There's nothing wrong with being ignorant about something if it's not important or relevant to you. However, if you want to get involved in technical discussions about a topic that is of importance or relevance to you then I believe it is your responsibility to take advantage of the resources available to you to learn about that topic so you're not ignorant any more. In my experience the C++ community is quite helpful and generous about helping people who want to learn but you're going to have to do a certain amount of the work yourself. I'm not part of the standards committee nor do I represent the C++ community as a whole. I personally am not particularly interested in trying to educate people who don't want to be educated. That doesn't say anything about whether I or anyone else in the C++ community is interested in the opinions of regular C++ programmers.
arandr0x 8y ago
I've read some of the drafts and the final spec of the APIs I care most about, for example, the concurrency API (which I like a lot... I'm not solely complaining!). Do I need to watch every talk on every C++ feature before anybody in the C++ community will want to talk to me? Because I'm paid to actually write code. (I mean normally. Today my boss isn't back from vacation so you get to read my rants on HN.) Here are the C++ subjects of interest to me: * geometric primitives. Not having basic geometry by now is insane. * concurrency, I think the API as it is is good, but some of the APIs around atomics (mostly the difference between compare_exchange_weak and compare_exchange_strong) are not clear, I have had to explain those to coworkers before. Why can't we have something called test_and_set like on atomic_flag that's an OK default? Also, while I perfectly understand why that's the case, atomics have deleted copy constructors and that tends to generate compiler errors. I don't get why compilers can't just generate default constructors that don't copy the atomic like all my coworkers keep having to write and potentially introduce errors in * filesystem API, very excited for that but sort of worried it will not work on every platform and especially that it'll work terrible on windows. I have to write Windows/Linux/iOS/Android C++ so a bunch of my gripes are "the standard is inconsistently supported" and I supposed that's not the job of the standards committee to enforce... but maybe they could stop inventing new stuff for Microsoft to screw up... * few other misc things. The fact X const& and const X& are both valid leads to every project having its own "standard" of const placement and it's not great to read, etc. not major stuff. But things that are of concerns to working programmers. I'm not really complaining, I love C++ and being a C++ programmer and you couldn't pay me enough to go integrate idiosyncratic web frameworks. However I think you must admit that the C++ community, beyond the language itself, is a little exclusive and not super friendly to people who are not as knowledgeable as others. I have a little time to learn some of this stuff, and I would be happy to, but I will never be an expert like most of the standard committee is. Based on your message I think that makes me and my opinion not welcome? If so that's OK, but, um, there's a lot more of me than there are of them in this industry. (edited for formatting)
- mattnewport 8y ago
  The standards committee is a volunteer effort. Some of the most active participants have employers who consider their involvement as part of their job responsibilities so they are at least partly being sponsored by their employers but plenty of people involved in the standardization process and attending conferences are not paid by anyone for their participation and are in fact paying the costs of attending out of their own pocket. Hardly anyone in the C++ community is directly paid to sit around learning more about the language. If you wanted a career where you didn't have to put in learning on your own time to keep your skills current I think you picked the wrong one. It's a fairly involved process to get a new library standardized. Functionality that's not included in the standard library may be missing because it's hard to get agreement on what is required, because there isn't anyone sufficiently motivated to drive it through standardization or because the committee just hasn't got round to it yet. I don't consider this particularly problematic in many cases. Some functionality probably shouldn't be part of the standard IMO. For example, there's been some effort to standardize a 2D graphics library and I'm of the opinion that should not be part of the C++ standard. I'm inclined to think the same thing for geometric primitives, for similar reasons. Certain types of library are better left to competing open source libraries for now I believe. Implementations are not the domain of the standards committee. It's rather inconsistent to demand relatively niche new library functionality for geometric primitives at the same time as wanting the committee to stop adding things to the standard faster than Microsoft can keep up however. Concurrency is complicated and there are a lot of pitfalls which the standard library has gone to great lengths to avoid. It sounds like you're misunderstanding the best way to use atomics but without knowing more about your use case I'm not clear exactly how. Coding standards are not really the domain of the standard and some things that have multiple possible ways to write them have to be maintained for backwards compatibility. If you want to standardize things like const placement however, tools for automatic formatting and transformation of C++ are getting better all the time thanks to clang/llvm. C++ occupies a niche which necessitates it being a bit less beginner friendly than some languages and a bit more demanding on users putting in the effort to learn the language. That's what makes it fairly uniquely suited to certain use cases. I don't see that as a bad thing. I don't really know what you're asking for to be honest. My advice to anybody who uses C++ as a major part of their career to invest a decent amount of time into learning it better though, just as I'd advise them to spend time learning more in any domain that is a big part of their professional life.

iseeyoubydesign 8y ago

if they dont want to learn c++ then its fine , c++ will live on without them

foldr 8y ago

>"it's not fair that I should have to know what I'm talking about before anyone will listen to my complaining seriously". In a way it isn't fair. Most users of most programming languages don't know the language very well. So the views of these programmers are important.

mattnewport 8y ago
I've never really bought this argument. If you want to contribute to theoretical physics and be taken seriously it's expected that you have a solid grounding in physics. This principle is generally fairly widely applied. There are people on the standards committee who represent their companies and part of their role is to speak for the needs of the 'regular' programmers at their companies who may not be as well informed on the language - Titus Winters from Google takes that part of his role seriously. Bjarne Stroustrup teaches C++ to many students and one of his big focuses is on simplifying the language for beginners. To do a good job of simplifying something though you actually need to understand the problem space very well. Simple ain't easy. If someone wants to represent the 'average' programmer then the best way to do it would be to educate themselves on the language and the current state of standardization and then participate as an advocate for those programmers.
- foldr 8y ago
  I wasn't talking about participating directly in the standards committee (and neither was the OP). It seems that the people who are supposed to be speaking for the regular programmers aren't doing a particularly good job.
  - mattnewport 8y ago
    It does seem that it seems that way. As someone who's pretty familiar with the current state of C++ and also has a long history in the games industry however I don't believe it actually is that way. I think the problem is more one of perception than reality but many of the complaints come from people who don't know what they don't know and I'm not sure the best way to fix that problem. The resources for them to educate themselves are freely available but a certain subset of them seem weirdly proudly stubborn about maintaining their ignorance. I'm not personally that interested in making it my mission to help educate people who don't want to be educated but perhaps it would be a valuable way for someone to get involved. People complaining on the basis of wrong information or misunderstandings aren't likely to be taken terribly seriously though.
    - foldr 8y ago
      You're very quick to call people ignorant and make uncharitable assumptions about their motivations. If your attitude is the common one, then it does seem that the opinions of regular C++ programmers are not valued by the people involved in the standards process.
      - mattnewport 8y ago
        I'm quick to call people ignorant who demonstrate their ignorance. It's not even an insult - I'm ignorant about lots of things. There's nothing wrong with being ignorant about something if it's not important or relevant to you. However, if you want to get involved in technical discussions about a topic that is of importance or relevance to you then I believe it is your responsibility to take advantage of the resources available to you to learn about that topic so you're not ignorant any more. In my experience the C++ community is quite helpful and generous about helping people who want to learn but you're going to have to do a certain amount of the work yourself. I'm not part of the standards committee nor do I represent the C++ community as a whole. I personally am not particularly interested in trying to educate people who don't want to be educated. That doesn't say anything about whether I or anyone else in the C++ community is interested in the opinions of regular C++ programmers.

arandr0x 8y ago

I've read some of the drafts and the final spec of the APIs I care most about, for example, the concurrency API (which I like a lot... I'm not solely complaining!). Do I need to watch every talk on every C++ feature before anybody in the C++ community will want to talk to me? Because I'm paid to actually write code. (I mean normally. Today my boss isn't back from vacation so you get to read my rants on HN.) Here are the C++ subjects of interest to me: * geometric primitives. Not having basic geometry by now is insane. * concurrency, I think the API as it is is good, but some of the APIs around atomics (mostly the difference between compare_exchange_weak and compare_exchange_strong) are not clear, I have had to explain those to coworkers before. Why can't we have something called test_and_set like on atomic_flag that's an OK default? Also, while I perfectly understand why that's the case, atomics have deleted copy constructors and that tends to generate compiler errors. I don't get why compilers can't just generate default constructors that don't copy the atomic like all my coworkers keep having to write and potentially introduce errors in * filesystem API, very excited for that but sort of worried it will not work on every platform and especially that it'll work terrible on windows. I have to write Windows/Linux/iOS/Android C++ so a bunch of my gripes are "the standard is inconsistently supported" and I supposed that's not the job of the standards committee to enforce... but maybe they could stop inventing new stuff for Microsoft to screw up... * few other misc things. The fact X const& and const X& are both valid leads to every project having its own "standard" of const placement and it's not great to read, etc. not major stuff. But things that are of concerns to working programmers. I'm not really complaining, I love C++ and being a C++ programmer and you couldn't pay me enough to go integrate idiosyncratic web frameworks. However I think you must admit that the C++ community, beyond the language itself, is a little exclusive and not super friendly to people who are not as knowledgeable as others. I have a little time to learn some of this stuff, and I would be happy to, but I will never be an expert like most of the standard committee is. Based on your message I think that makes me and my opinion not welcome? If so that's OK, but, um, there's a lot more of me than there are of them in this industry. (edited for formatting)

mattnewport 8y ago
The standards committee is a volunteer effort. Some of the most active participants have employers who consider their involvement as part of their job responsibilities so they are at least partly being sponsored by their employers but plenty of people involved in the standardization process and attending conferences are not paid by anyone for their participation and are in fact paying the costs of attending out of their own pocket. Hardly anyone in the C++ community is directly paid to sit around learning more about the language. If you wanted a career where you didn't have to put in learning on your own time to keep your skills current I think you picked the wrong one. It's a fairly involved process to get a new library standardized. Functionality that's not included in the standard library may be missing because it's hard to get agreement on what is required, because there isn't anyone sufficiently motivated to drive it through standardization or because the committee just hasn't got round to it yet. I don't consider this particularly problematic in many cases. Some functionality probably shouldn't be part of the standard IMO. For example, there's been some effort to standardize a 2D graphics library and I'm of the opinion that should not be part of the C++ standard. I'm inclined to think the same thing for geometric primitives, for similar reasons. Certain types of library are better left to competing open source libraries for now I believe. Implementations are not the domain of the standards committee. It's rather inconsistent to demand relatively niche new library functionality for geometric primitives at the same time as wanting the committee to stop adding things to the standard faster than Microsoft can keep up however. Concurrency is complicated and there are a lot of pitfalls which the standard library has gone to great lengths to avoid. It sounds like you're misunderstanding the best way to use atomics but without knowing more about your use case I'm not clear exactly how. Coding standards are not really the domain of the standard and some things that have multiple possible ways to write them have to be maintained for backwards compatibility. If you want to standardize things like const placement however, tools for automatic formatting and transformation of C++ are getting better all the time thanks to clang/llvm. C++ occupies a niche which necessitates it being a bit less beginner friendly than some languages and a bit more demanding on users putting in the effort to learn the language. That's what makes it fairly uniquely suited to certain use cases. I don't see that as a bad thing. I don't really know what you're asking for to be honest. My advice to anybody who uses C++ as a major part of their career to invest a decent amount of time into learning it better though, just as I'd advise them to spend time learning more in any domain that is a big part of their professional life.