6 ms·

Looking at your code a bit, it seems you are not using templates, operator overloading, exceptions, STL or std::string. Your test framework also looks custom bu

by suraj 16y ago

Looking at your code a bit, it seems you are not using templates, operator overloading, exceptions, STL or std::string. Your test framework also looks custom built (aside: IMO UnitTest++ would have fit you style). I think if you just changed class data to structure and member functions to accept structure pointer, you would get a nice C representation (almost every class I looked at had an Init method). In effect you are using C++ to avoid very small boilerplate code in equivalent C program. No wonder you find C++ pleasurable, you are using it as C with classes! However, if you are working on an existing code base with mix of STL, boost and bunch of other libraries, you would start feeling pain of using C++. In my experience, every library author uses a different subset of C++ and as an application writer, you often have to grapple with the glaringly different idoms in your program. I find boost pleasurable to use; however looking at boost source is enough to melt my mind. Almost everywhere C++ (language and libraries) try to satisfy every corner case and sacrifice usability of common case. e. g. STL iterators (at least I have BOOST_FOREACH to soften them). Ah well this is probably contributing very little to the discussion but I feel better now :) So let me redirect to [C++ FQA](http://yosefk.com/c++fqa/ http://yosefk.com/c++fqa/) and let yourself decide whether the points in FQA make sense to you.

Maro 16y ago
We do use templates in our containers: https://github.com/scalien/scaliendb/tree/master/src/System/Containers https://github.com/scalien/scaliendb/tree/master/src/System/... Yes, we try to avoid op.overloading, exceptions, and we explicitly don't use the STL, Boost, <any library>. All the code is ours, which is really nice if you're debugging, finding performance problems, etc. It was our experience on previous projects that pulling in outside libraries in a systems level project like a database ends up wasting time (spent in understanding, debugging and optimizing outside code) over just writing what you need. This has proven to be a good call, we fix all bugs, however deep or nasty very quickly. Thanks for the UnitTest++ tip.
- JoeAltmaier 16y ago
  Folks might accuse you of NIH, but the quality of outside libraries is variable, suitable for a prototype but for shipping code you need control of ALL of it.
  - agazso 16y ago
    Also don't forget licensing issues. It becomes important when you make a living of selling software.
  - dkersten 16y ago
    C++ Standard Library and Boost are of very high quality. It's quite tough to beat them.
    - JoeAltmaier 16y ago
      On major platforms. But on embedded etc its hard to use any library - there are unintended dependencies. { embedded programmer }
      - dkersten 16y ago
        Sure. You definitely have a point, but in context of the discussion here (ie Maro's code), I see no evidence that he is programming for an embedded system.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - yannickt 16y ago
      Things like move semantics and r-value references in C++1x will make them much tougher to beat. And for the most part they're not particularly hard to understand either. The standard library in particular, despite being a generalized library, is highly customizable and can be optimized for special cases (e.g. with custom character traits or allocators). Because it's a standard, good C++ developers should be able to use it. But if everyone reinvents the wheel developers would have to learn a new container or string interface every time they change jobs.
- yannickt 16y ago
  The STL is not a third party library anymore and most of it has been part of the standard for several years now. I would be curious to know what problems did you have with the STL, and how long ago? In my experience most people who refused to use the STL did it for the wrong reasons. Even the EASTL (which makes a good case against the standard library implementations) implements the STL interface.
  - dkersten 16y ago
    The STL is not a third party library anymore - its part of the langauge just as much as the C++ runtime is.
- sausagefeet 16y ago
  Avoiding all other libraries seems an odd choice to me. Are you including std::string in "STL"? Almost all of the "STL" containers are part of the C++ standard now so not using them doesn't make a lot of sense.
dkersten 16y ago
No wonder you find C++ pleasurable, you are using it as C with classes! I also find C++ pleasurable (90% of the time) and in my code, I make heavy use of templates (including compile-time calculation/preparation of data, ie not only simple "templates as generics"), exceptions (well, not heavy use, I use them for handling exceptional circumstances, nothing more), STL (especially the containers), std::string (C strings and custom string classes are evil), Boost (not so much, but it has some great libraries), Qt (GUI mainly, but also the support libraries) and Intel Threading Building Blocks. I do not use multiple inheritance, but I certainly use classes and single inheritance, pointers, smart pointers and memory pools. But I still like C++. I agree that it has its problems and it certainly isn't a good language for beginners [1], but it is a very flexible and powerful language that is useful for a range of tasks from low-level to high-level code (though I guess it excells at mid-level: higher level that C, but low level enough for performance sensitive code, eg games). I certainly wouldn't recommend it for a lot of tasks, but I wouldn't avoid it either. I'm not a big fan of the FQA, but the FAQ Lite is very good: http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/index.html http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/index.html also, Bjarne Stroustrups FAQ is excellent: http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq2.html http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq2.html [1] Even experts got this quiz wrong: https://scapecode.com/2009/10/a-simple-c-quiz/ https://scapecode.com/2009/10/a-simple-c-quiz/
dkarl 16y ago
We use templates, exceptions, STL, and Boost and deploy to tens of thousands of devices in the field. We have the advantage of a uniform hardware and OS platform, so we don't have to worry about compiler issues. We could reasonably replace C++ with a combination of C and a higher-level language. However, C++ is a much better language for our low-level code than C, and we have a lot of low-level code, so we have to take it seriously. If we took the route of using a high-level language to coordinate functionality implemented in C, we would end up using C++ to implement the "C" libraries, just for the benefits of RAII, exceptions, smart pointers, etc. We could also succeed with a stable and efficient Common Lisp implementation. Other languages such as OCaml might work for us, but I'm not qualified to say. We wouldn't bother changing at this point, though, unless we decided to create an entirely new product to compete with our current one. C++ is not a problem or a limitation for us. The shortcomings of C++ add a little bit of extra work, but they aren't a multiplier. Most other languages would aggravate our existing problems instead of just adding a constant factor of inconvenience. And that's with templates, exceptions, STL, and Boost!
- suraj 16y ago
  Our project uses ICE (http://www.zeroc.com http://www.zeroc.com) for some scalable computing and a large part of the system is indeed written in C++ (with bunch of other libraries). However, developing large scale application in C++ requires discipline even at smaller level (Should I use auto_ptr or shared_ptr? Should I pass by reference or by pointer? Macro or template? GCC does what?). I have found C++ to be too complex to fit within my head. Even though I am programming almost exclusively in it for a while; I get a feeling that I am spending more time on placating the compiler than thinking about code. For cross platform work that uses a lot of libraries I would not recommend C++. It is where my frustration stems from.
  - dkarl 16y ago
    I guess "discipline" is something we're lucky to have a lot of. 99% of usage questions are answered by looking at existing code -- just stay consistent unless there's a really good reason to depart. There are a bunch of things that would get you lynched in our group, but we rarely have to lynch anybody. There's a lot of mutual respect and a lot of respect for the existing coding style, especially among programmers who have done C++ programming elsewhere and suffered through unsafe and unscalable practices. I think most good C++ programmers spend years coming up to speed. I know I spent many hours coding for fun in college and read through TC++PL a couple of times (also for fun) before I started programming in C++ professionally. It was a wise investment, no doubt about it. It's an open question whether it would be a wise investment today, though.
zohebv 16y ago
I have very little respect for the fqa. It is just a laundry list of complaints; absurd whining about every item in the C++ FAQ. For eg : http://yosefk.com/c++fqa/assign.html http://yosefk.com/c++fqa/assign.html If you are going to complain about a self assignment check in the assignment operator function, maybe you should stay away from any kind of programming at all. And I don't understand this complaining about which subset of C++ needs to be used. I have written scala code and it most definitely does not use every feature of scala. The scenarios in which any of the C++ features need to be used is fairly obvious. 1. STL - use it all the time, it is one of the core libraries of modern C++ 2. templates/overloading - You will use these features when you use STL. You typically won't create you own template classes. 3. exceptions - This is one of the C++ features used less often. Dealing with it is no different from dealing with exceptions in other languages like Java. > I find boost pleasurable to use; however looking at boost source is enough to melt my mind. The idea is that you use boost source and not look at it. boost libraries are a very specialized kind of template meta-programming code that only container writers have to deal with. I like being able to use a smart_ptr without having to worry about silly memory leaks, none of which would have been possible without templates or operator overloading in plain vanilla C. There are several deficiencies with C++, that I experience on a day to day basis, none of which are discussed in any of these online C++ rants. I have never faced any software engineering issues because of the multitude of C++ features. That has never been the problem. If anything all these features reduce the amount of boiler plate that I need to write to get my job done. You may not like STL iterators, but they are a 1000 times better than some of the gnarly C macros I have seen in C code to get STL like containers in C. Once you have seen that kind of C code, you will be glad about the existence of templates.

by suraj 16y ago

Maro 16y ago

We do use templates in our containers: https://github.com/scalien/scaliendb/tree/master/src/System/Containers https://github.com/scalien/scaliendb/tree/master/src/System/... Yes, we try to avoid op.overloading, exceptions, and we explicitly don't use the STL, Boost, <any library>. All the code is ours, which is really nice if you're debugging, finding performance problems, etc. It was our experience on previous projects that pulling in outside libraries in a systems level project like a database ends up wasting time (spent in understanding, debugging and optimizing outside code) over just writing what you need. This has proven to be a good call, we fix all bugs, however deep or nasty very quickly. Thanks for the UnitTest++ tip.

JoeAltmaier 16y ago
Folks might accuse you of NIH, but the quality of outside libraries is variable, suitable for a prototype but for shipping code you need control of ALL of it.
- agazso 16y ago
  Also don't forget licensing issues. It becomes important when you make a living of selling software.
- dkersten 16y ago
  C++ Standard Library and Boost are of very high quality. It's quite tough to beat them.
  - JoeAltmaier 16y ago
    On major platforms. But on embedded etc its hard to use any library - there are unintended dependencies. { embedded programmer }
    - dkersten 16y ago
      Sure. You definitely have a point, but in context of the discussion here (ie Maro's code), I see no evidence that he is programming for an embedded system.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - yannickt 16y ago
    Things like move semantics and r-value references in C++1x will make them much tougher to beat. And for the most part they're not particularly hard to understand either. The standard library in particular, despite being a generalized library, is highly customizable and can be optimized for special cases (e.g. with custom character traits or allocators). Because it's a standard, good C++ developers should be able to use it. But if everyone reinvents the wheel developers would have to learn a new container or string interface every time they change jobs.
yannickt 16y ago
The STL is not a third party library anymore and most of it has been part of the standard for several years now. I would be curious to know what problems did you have with the STL, and how long ago? In my experience most people who refused to use the STL did it for the wrong reasons. Even the EASTL (which makes a good case against the standard library implementations) implements the STL interface.
- dkersten 16y ago
  The STL is not a third party library anymore - its part of the langauge just as much as the C++ runtime is.
sausagefeet 16y ago
Avoiding all other libraries seems an odd choice to me. Are you including std::string in "STL"? Almost all of the "STL" containers are part of the C++ standard now so not using them doesn't make a lot of sense.

dkersten 16y ago

No wonder you find C++ pleasurable, you are using it as C with classes! I also find C++ pleasurable (90% of the time) and in my code, I make heavy use of templates (including compile-time calculation/preparation of data, ie not only simple "templates as generics"), exceptions (well, not heavy use, I use them for handling exceptional circumstances, nothing more), STL (especially the containers), std::string (C strings and custom string classes are evil), Boost (not so much, but it has some great libraries), Qt (GUI mainly, but also the support libraries) and Intel Threading Building Blocks. I do not use multiple inheritance, but I certainly use classes and single inheritance, pointers, smart pointers and memory pools. But I still like C++. I agree that it has its problems and it certainly isn't a good language for beginners [1], but it is a very flexible and powerful language that is useful for a range of tasks from low-level to high-level code (though I guess it excells at mid-level: higher level that C, but low level enough for performance sensitive code, eg games). I certainly wouldn't recommend it for a lot of tasks, but I wouldn't avoid it either. I'm not a big fan of the FQA, but the FAQ Lite is very good: http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/index.html http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/index.html also, Bjarne Stroustrups FAQ is excellent: http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq2.html http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq2.html [1] Even experts got this quiz wrong: https://scapecode.com/2009/10/a-simple-c-quiz/ https://scapecode.com/2009/10/a-simple-c-quiz/

dkarl 16y ago

We use templates, exceptions, STL, and Boost and deploy to tens of thousands of devices in the field. We have the advantage of a uniform hardware and OS platform, so we don't have to worry about compiler issues. We could reasonably replace C++ with a combination of C and a higher-level language. However, C++ is a much better language for our low-level code than C, and we have a lot of low-level code, so we have to take it seriously. If we took the route of using a high-level language to coordinate functionality implemented in C, we would end up using C++ to implement the "C" libraries, just for the benefits of RAII, exceptions, smart pointers, etc. We could also succeed with a stable and efficient Common Lisp implementation. Other languages such as OCaml might work for us, but I'm not qualified to say. We wouldn't bother changing at this point, though, unless we decided to create an entirely new product to compete with our current one. C++ is not a problem or a limitation for us. The shortcomings of C++ add a little bit of extra work, but they aren't a multiplier. Most other languages would aggravate our existing problems instead of just adding a constant factor of inconvenience. And that's with templates, exceptions, STL, and Boost!

suraj 16y ago
Our project uses ICE (http://www.zeroc.com http://www.zeroc.com) for some scalable computing and a large part of the system is indeed written in C++ (with bunch of other libraries). However, developing large scale application in C++ requires discipline even at smaller level (Should I use auto_ptr or shared_ptr? Should I pass by reference or by pointer? Macro or template? GCC does what?). I have found C++ to be too complex to fit within my head. Even though I am programming almost exclusively in it for a while; I get a feeling that I am spending more time on placating the compiler than thinking about code. For cross platform work that uses a lot of libraries I would not recommend C++. It is where my frustration stems from.
- dkarl 16y ago
  I guess "discipline" is something we're lucky to have a lot of. 99% of usage questions are answered by looking at existing code -- just stay consistent unless there's a really good reason to depart. There are a bunch of things that would get you lynched in our group, but we rarely have to lynch anybody. There's a lot of mutual respect and a lot of respect for the existing coding style, especially among programmers who have done C++ programming elsewhere and suffered through unsafe and unscalable practices. I think most good C++ programmers spend years coming up to speed. I know I spent many hours coding for fun in college and read through TC++PL a couple of times (also for fun) before I started programming in C++ professionally. It was a wise investment, no doubt about it. It's an open question whether it would be a wise investment today, though.

zohebv 16y ago

I have very little respect for the fqa. It is just a laundry list of complaints; absurd whining about every item in the C++ FAQ. For eg : http://yosefk.com/c++fqa/assign.html http://yosefk.com/c++fqa/assign.html If you are going to complain about a self assignment check in the assignment operator function, maybe you should stay away from any kind of programming at all. And I don't understand this complaining about which subset of C++ needs to be used. I have written scala code and it most definitely does not use every feature of scala. The scenarios in which any of the C++ features need to be used is fairly obvious. 1. STL - use it all the time, it is one of the core libraries of modern C++ 2. templates/overloading - You will use these features when you use STL. You typically won't create you own template classes. 3. exceptions - This is one of the C++ features used less often. Dealing with it is no different from dealing with exceptions in other languages like Java. > I find boost pleasurable to use; however looking at boost source is enough to melt my mind. The idea is that you use boost source and not look at it. boost libraries are a very specialized kind of template meta-programming code that only container writers have to deal with. I like being able to use a smart_ptr without having to worry about silly memory leaks, none of which would have been possible without templates or operator overloading in plain vanilla C. There are several deficiencies with C++, that I experience on a day to day basis, none of which are discussed in any of these online C++ rants. I have never faced any software engineering issues because of the multitude of C++ features. That has never been the problem. If anything all these features reduce the amount of boiler plate that I need to write to get my job done. You may not like STL iterators, but they are a 1000 times better than some of the gnarly C macros I have seen in C code to get STL like containers in C. Once you have seen that kind of C code, you will be glad about the existence of templates.