3 ms·

I agree about the looseness in C++. However, the details of move semantics are not complex. For instance, reading first item of Effective Modern C++, “understan

I agree about the looseness in C++. However, the details of move semantics are not complex. For instance, reading first item of Effective Modern C++, “understanding type deduction” shows it’s pretty much the same as type deduction templates have used for decades. If one understands the aspects you mention above, good coding practices can easily be put in place and code reviews enforce.

nicoburns 7y ago
The fact that you have to read a book to understand C++ says it all really.
- yaktubi 7y ago
  One should read a book—or perhaps even many books—on mathematics, or any subject, to call oneself proficient in the subject matter. In fact, if you do not read books on subjects , you are part of the code quality problem to begin with.
  - nicoburns 7y ago
    I have a maths degree, and I don't think this is at all true for programming. Lot's of people read books on Object Oriented programming, and write absolutely awful Java Enterprise code. Or they read books on algorithms, and write fantastically efficient code that's completely unreadable. And what's better than a book of best-practices? A compiler that enforces them.
    - antonvs 7y ago
      I've never met a person with a maths degree who could write professional quality code, unless they also had some sort of other training. Reading books doesn't automatically fix that, but it can help, just by exposing one to practices that one might not have come across in the kind of work that passes for programming for mathematicians, data scientist, etc.
      - nicoburns 7y ago
        > I've never met a person with a maths degree who could write professional quality code, That's probably fair! There was a programming module in my degree, and it was awful. People were literally rote-memorising whole scripts for the exam (the CS department at my uni didn't do exams, but of course the maths dept did for their programming module). I actually started programming before the maths degree, and have over 10 years of experience at this point. I'm not saying my code is perfect, but I imagine I'm incorporating many of what you would consider best practices. I guess reading books can help. I've just not actually met any developers who write high quality code who learnt it from a book. They all learnt it from 1. Practice and experience 2. Colleagues in a work environment 3. Places like HN, which is excellent at exposing you to things you might not otherwise have come across. I guess my criticism of C++ is over all the little details that can trip you up if you don't have a comprehensive knowledge of the language (undefined behaviour, use after free, etc). Most of them aren't tooo bad on their own, but there are just so many. Most other languages simply don't have these issues.
quietbritishjim 7y ago
I have read Effective C++ and it's excellent, and was a step on my journey to understanding move semantics! But reading a single item from it didn't instantaneously teach me everything I needed to know. I can say more specifically on this topic but that digresses from my original point, which was really meant to be more general and was steamrollered a bit in the other replies. My original point was not that you can never understand move semantics, or that you can never write decent C++ programs. I've written a few complex C++ programs used in production that are pretty nifty if I don't say so myself! I was also not trying to say that it's unreasonable to have to read books about programming languages, that's pretty silly in my view. What I was actually saying is that move semantics - and other features, that was just an example - are harder than they need to be in C++. Even once you've understood the feature, it still requires a constant mental burden - more to the point, more mental resources than it potentially could - and we all have finite mental resources. I had actually quoted the wrong part of your original comment, I had meant to quote this: > I think to get good at a given systems language these days the effort is the same. This is what I really disagree with, especially if you include not just C++ and Rust but other current and even hypothetical future systems languages. I'm not even saying that Rust is necessarily a better language than C++; I've not used it enough to know that. Just that, for that one language feature at least, Rust shows that it is possible to create a language with move semantics that are both easier conceptually and more ergonomic to use - it's a total win-win. For other language features, perhaps other languages show how it could be done more simply. There is definitely scope for systems languages that require less effort to learn and less effort to use after you've mastered them. (Rust may or may not be one.)

nicoburns 7y ago

The fact that you have to read a book to understand C++ says it all really.

yaktubi 7y ago
One should read a book—or perhaps even many books—on mathematics, or any subject, to call oneself proficient in the subject matter. In fact, if you do not read books on subjects , you are part of the code quality problem to begin with.
- nicoburns 7y ago
  I have a maths degree, and I don't think this is at all true for programming. Lot's of people read books on Object Oriented programming, and write absolutely awful Java Enterprise code. Or they read books on algorithms, and write fantastically efficient code that's completely unreadable. And what's better than a book of best-practices? A compiler that enforces them.
  - antonvs 7y ago
    I've never met a person with a maths degree who could write professional quality code, unless they also had some sort of other training. Reading books doesn't automatically fix that, but it can help, just by exposing one to practices that one might not have come across in the kind of work that passes for programming for mathematicians, data scientist, etc.
    - nicoburns 7y ago
      > I've never met a person with a maths degree who could write professional quality code, That's probably fair! There was a programming module in my degree, and it was awful. People were literally rote-memorising whole scripts for the exam (the CS department at my uni didn't do exams, but of course the maths dept did for their programming module). I actually started programming before the maths degree, and have over 10 years of experience at this point. I'm not saying my code is perfect, but I imagine I'm incorporating many of what you would consider best practices. I guess reading books can help. I've just not actually met any developers who write high quality code who learnt it from a book. They all learnt it from 1. Practice and experience 2. Colleagues in a work environment 3. Places like HN, which is excellent at exposing you to things you might not otherwise have come across. I guess my criticism of C++ is over all the little details that can trip you up if you don't have a comprehensive knowledge of the language (undefined behaviour, use after free, etc). Most of them aren't tooo bad on their own, but there are just so many. Most other languages simply don't have these issues.

quietbritishjim 7y ago

I have read Effective C++ and it's excellent, and was a step on my journey to understanding move semantics! But reading a single item from it didn't instantaneously teach me everything I needed to know. I can say more specifically on this topic but that digresses from my original point, which was really meant to be more general and was steamrollered a bit in the other replies. My original point was not that you can never understand move semantics, or that you can never write decent C++ programs. I've written a few complex C++ programs used in production that are pretty nifty if I don't say so myself! I was also not trying to say that it's unreasonable to have to read books about programming languages, that's pretty silly in my view. What I was actually saying is that move semantics - and other features, that was just an example - are harder than they need to be in C++. Even once you've understood the feature, it still requires a constant mental burden - more to the point, more mental resources than it potentially could - and we all have finite mental resources. I had actually quoted the wrong part of your original comment, I had meant to quote this: > I think to get good at a given systems language these days the effort is the same. This is what I really disagree with, especially if you include not just C++ and Rust but other current and even hypothetical future systems languages. I'm not even saying that Rust is necessarily a better language than C++; I've not used it enough to know that. Just that, for that one language feature at least, Rust shows that it is possible to create a language with move semantics that are both easier conceptually and more ergonomic to use - it's a total win-win. For other language features, perhaps other languages show how it could be done more simply. There is definitely scope for systems languages that require less effort to learn and less effort to use after you've mastered them. (Rust may or may not be one.)