10 ms·

Association of C and C++ Users (ACCU) They should really just call themselves the ACU, they are wildly pro C++. It's progress that there is even a C talk at al

by harry8 5y ago

Association of C and C++ Users (ACCU) They should really just call themselves the ACU, they are wildly pro C++. It's progress that there is even a C talk at all at their conference but even looking at the title it's pitching itself at "No really, C isn't completely worthless" One day such language wars might seem quaint. While everyone has their livelihoods tied to their chosen technologies it probably won't. C++ is fine imho fwiw. It's just not anything like "always and everywhere a better choice that C which should be treated as a virus." The Scala folk are worst at it around here that I've seen but my experience may not be yours. People used to say similar of the LISP people on newsgroups. Perl was the first I saw where Larry and co. spent a lot of resource trying to make that not happen in the community. Python did a decent job following from what I've seen. C++ has always been pretty brutal in silly ways. I hope for it to calm down. Having one purely C talk at the conference of the Association of C and C++ users might be considered in some spheres to be "progress of a sort." edit: disclosure. I am a member of the ACCU.

lmilcin 5y ago
In my experience, I have to qualify I program "ANSI C", otherwise people assume that I am really talking about C++. I list ANSI C and no C++ in my professional experience and yet I have had a bunch of people call me to seriously talk about me helping in their C++ project. Maybe I shouldn't fault recruiters too much, though they should probably understand what language they are hiring for. But some of these guys were technical managers. It kinda seems to me a lot of technical world assumes C died and C++ is newer and better version of it, which obviously is wrong way to look at it. These are separate languages that for unfortunate historical reasons share a lot of tooling and language syntax.
- harry8 5y ago
  If you can program C well, C++ isn't going to be too much of a problem for you. The reverse is not necessarily true. If I were hiring on a C++ project I'd definitely want to talk to someone who is genuinely good at C - they may not want to talk of course.
  - lmilcin 5y ago
    I have been programming professionally for over 20 years in languages ranging from assembly to Lisp and everything inbetween and applications from embedded to Linux kernel, to OS, to backend systems to algorithmic trading. That I don't touch C++ is my choice because after years of development I decided that most of all I value simple and readable code, working with people who like to write simple and readable code or helping projects write simple and readable code. And C++ and community is, in my opinion, anything but about simplicity and readability. For some reason I do not fully understand, C++ projects I have participated are a contest of who can think of more convoluted C++ construct that nobody ever will be able to understand and C++ seem to be absolutely perfect platform for it. Even if I am able to understand it (which I frequently do not), I just can't rationalize putting crap like that in a project that is expected to then be grokked and modified by new developers. I have tried restricting the types of constructs and C++ syntax used in projects in the past but this inevitably causes flamewars and lots of discussions about why these rules were instituted and whether they are necessary. I am sick and tired of explaining the value that exists in moderation and restriction.
    - harry8 5y ago
      yep. That's a reasonable view. Hence: >> they may not want to talk of course. C++ as an indicator of dud project, poor team and programmer lack of taste is valid. It isn't necessarily always true but there's no reason for you to care if you've gone that way and it worked.
    - wruza 5y ago
      No upvote can tell how much I relate to this. The only way to get a good maintainable C++ code is to hire very mediocre programmers whose “C++” really means “Qt with some shared ptrs”. The reason (I believe) is that complex things are like hard drugs for smart people. Instead of solving business tasks, which honestly are often just boring, they long for an art in programming. In C++ this inevitably leads to solving non-existing problems in a most complex, efficient and unstable way that requires a hard set of prerequisites to work, and then these break. You can see it on forums. C, python, js folks discuss libraries, idioms and best practices, and C++ folks discuss a turing completeness of template metaprogramming and the most obscure ways to pass results up the callstack without copying 8 to 24 bytes. Almost no one I talked with there actually worked for someone who actually needed these microscopic gains all over the code. Or who understood what they do beyond “it’s complex and expensive, but in the end they deliver the results we need, so that’s justified”.
- varajelle 5y ago
  > C died and C++ is newer and better version of it That's kind of my opinion. C didn't die for legacy reasons, but starting new project in C seems a nonsense to me. C++ just has so many features that makes the development of programs and libraries easier, for almost no extra costs.
  - harry8 5y ago
    This is a perfectly valid and fine opinion for many new projects. Possibly even most. The point were I dismiss this sort of thing is where it is "all" new projects.
  - Y_Y 5y ago
    Maybe you're just an unusually talented coder, but I pay dearly for every little extra bit of C++ my code touches. It's often worth it, but never a freebie.
    - mettamage 5y ago
      I'm distinguishing between a hobby perspective and a professional perspective. IMO that really depends on the project size and goal of the project. I've written a C++ project of about 1000 lines (algobot trader with some optimized data structures in keeping the order book consistent). I've written it in VS Code, used a GUI debugger and I haven't really paid for anything. Meanwhile, I have this friend that programs so much C++ that his mantra is "in C++ assume all tools are broken." When I hear his horror stories, oh dear! Heisenbugs come by every 2 to 3 months. So for small projects that aren't touching the lower OS/systems level parts, you're not paying any extra costs. However, the deeper and further you go, I'd fully agree.
      - fnord123 5y ago
        Are you sure you're not hitting heisenbugs every 2-3 months?
      - lmilcin 5y ago
        The issue is for small project you don't really require C++ over C. Because supposedly the price you pay for abstractions has better returns the larger the application is (and that is generally true). My largest C project was 60k lines of code. The code was very, very dense. It had a lot of functionality that had to be packed to as little code as possible (due to memory limitation). It had things like transactional log-based database working in very small, static amount of memory, point in time recovery (so if the application failed it could restore itself to a number of possible checkpoints before the failure), parsers for various protocols (BER-TLV, for example), a lot of cryptography and custom cryptographic protocols, a GUI framework for a small monochromatic screen and keypad, drivers for a bunch of devices (thermal printer, external pinpad, etc.), SSL, a lot of business logic, state machines for talking to a network host, etc.
derefr 5y ago
I prefer C, but I technically write C++ because my “C code” sometimes uses references instead of pointers. (Why did that never become a C feature, anyway? It’s completely independent from OO/exceptions/templates/etc.) Luckily, in most any environment you can name, installing a C compiler actually implicitly installs a C++ compiler as well; so I can hand my “C code” library to people and tell them it’s C, and the fact that there’re a few .cpp files in there won’t be a problem, any more than having some .asm files in there would be. I’d like to use std::string as well, but I want my code to externally obey the C FFI, rather than the C++ one (I.e. no need for the linking code to know it needs to initialize the C++ runtime), so I can’t really use any STL. Still wishing C had a standard, portable, found-in-all-compilers prefix-length strings library...
- flohofwoe 5y ago
  > Why did that never become a C feature, anyway? I would rather ask, why did C++ add another reference type next to pointers ;) PS: the important part is that libraries have a C API, whether the implementation underneath is written in C or C++ isn't all that important. But IMHO once you're restricted to a C API anyway, writing the implementation in C too makes more sense because there's fewer situations where the implementation clashes with the interface.
  - pjmlp 5y ago
    Because that allows for out parameters and referring to memory addresses without the unsafety of dealing with pointers, something that even ALGOL and PL/I supported.
    - flohofwoe 5y ago
      > allows for out parameters Out parameters are mostly a legacy feature from the time when C compilers didn't allow struct return values though, or implemented this inefficiently (besides, out parameters via pointers works too). > memory addresses without the unsafety of dealing with pointers I never understood the "increased safety" argument. C++ references can become dangling just as easily as pointers, and arguable they're even worse, because most of the time they look like regular value types.
kaba0 5y ago
Not trying to start a language war, but what exactly would you use C for? C++ is just as good at embedded, and you can use it as basically a slightly less foot-gunny C. And there is also Rust and Zig, if that’s not really what you want. I just can’t really use C with that amount of namespace pollution, at least namespaces should be added. And purely text-based macros are the worst thing ever.
- pjmlp 5y ago
  UNIX/POSIX clones.
- david2ndaccount 5y ago
  Rust is very, very complicated and Zig is not stable.

by harry8 5y ago

lmilcin 5y ago

In my experience, I have to qualify I program "ANSI C", otherwise people assume that I am really talking about C++. I list ANSI C and no C++ in my professional experience and yet I have had a bunch of people call me to seriously talk about me helping in their C++ project. Maybe I shouldn't fault recruiters too much, though they should probably understand what language they are hiring for. But some of these guys were technical managers. It kinda seems to me a lot of technical world assumes C died and C++ is newer and better version of it, which obviously is wrong way to look at it. These are separate languages that for unfortunate historical reasons share a lot of tooling and language syntax.

harry8 5y ago
If you can program C well, C++ isn't going to be too much of a problem for you. The reverse is not necessarily true. If I were hiring on a C++ project I'd definitely want to talk to someone who is genuinely good at C - they may not want to talk of course.
- lmilcin 5y ago
  I have been programming professionally for over 20 years in languages ranging from assembly to Lisp and everything inbetween and applications from embedded to Linux kernel, to OS, to backend systems to algorithmic trading. That I don't touch C++ is my choice because after years of development I decided that most of all I value simple and readable code, working with people who like to write simple and readable code or helping projects write simple and readable code. And C++ and community is, in my opinion, anything but about simplicity and readability. For some reason I do not fully understand, C++ projects I have participated are a contest of who can think of more convoluted C++ construct that nobody ever will be able to understand and C++ seem to be absolutely perfect platform for it. Even if I am able to understand it (which I frequently do not), I just can't rationalize putting crap like that in a project that is expected to then be grokked and modified by new developers. I have tried restricting the types of constructs and C++ syntax used in projects in the past but this inevitably causes flamewars and lots of discussions about why these rules were instituted and whether they are necessary. I am sick and tired of explaining the value that exists in moderation and restriction.
  - harry8 5y ago
    yep. That's a reasonable view. Hence: >> they may not want to talk of course. C++ as an indicator of dud project, poor team and programmer lack of taste is valid. It isn't necessarily always true but there's no reason for you to care if you've gone that way and it worked.
  - wruza 5y ago
    No upvote can tell how much I relate to this. The only way to get a good maintainable C++ code is to hire very mediocre programmers whose “C++” really means “Qt with some shared ptrs”. The reason (I believe) is that complex things are like hard drugs for smart people. Instead of solving business tasks, which honestly are often just boring, they long for an art in programming. In C++ this inevitably leads to solving non-existing problems in a most complex, efficient and unstable way that requires a hard set of prerequisites to work, and then these break. You can see it on forums. C, python, js folks discuss libraries, idioms and best practices, and C++ folks discuss a turing completeness of template metaprogramming and the most obscure ways to pass results up the callstack without copying 8 to 24 bytes. Almost no one I talked with there actually worked for someone who actually needed these microscopic gains all over the code. Or who understood what they do beyond “it’s complex and expensive, but in the end they deliver the results we need, so that’s justified”.
varajelle 5y ago
> C died and C++ is newer and better version of it That's kind of my opinion. C didn't die for legacy reasons, but starting new project in C seems a nonsense to me. C++ just has so many features that makes the development of programs and libraries easier, for almost no extra costs.
- harry8 5y ago
  This is a perfectly valid and fine opinion for many new projects. Possibly even most. The point were I dismiss this sort of thing is where it is "all" new projects.
- Y_Y 5y ago
  Maybe you're just an unusually talented coder, but I pay dearly for every little extra bit of C++ my code touches. It's often worth it, but never a freebie.
  - mettamage 5y ago
    I'm distinguishing between a hobby perspective and a professional perspective. IMO that really depends on the project size and goal of the project. I've written a C++ project of about 1000 lines (algobot trader with some optimized data structures in keeping the order book consistent). I've written it in VS Code, used a GUI debugger and I haven't really paid for anything. Meanwhile, I have this friend that programs so much C++ that his mantra is "in C++ assume all tools are broken." When I hear his horror stories, oh dear! Heisenbugs come by every 2 to 3 months. So for small projects that aren't touching the lower OS/systems level parts, you're not paying any extra costs. However, the deeper and further you go, I'd fully agree.
    - fnord123 5y ago
      Are you sure you're not hitting heisenbugs every 2-3 months?
    - lmilcin 5y ago
      The issue is for small project you don't really require C++ over C. Because supposedly the price you pay for abstractions has better returns the larger the application is (and that is generally true). My largest C project was 60k lines of code. The code was very, very dense. It had a lot of functionality that had to be packed to as little code as possible (due to memory limitation). It had things like transactional log-based database working in very small, static amount of memory, point in time recovery (so if the application failed it could restore itself to a number of possible checkpoints before the failure), parsers for various protocols (BER-TLV, for example), a lot of cryptography and custom cryptographic protocols, a GUI framework for a small monochromatic screen and keypad, drivers for a bunch of devices (thermal printer, external pinpad, etc.), SSL, a lot of business logic, state machines for talking to a network host, etc.

derefr 5y ago

I prefer C, but I technically write C++ because my “C code” sometimes uses references instead of pointers. (Why did that never become a C feature, anyway? It’s completely independent from OO/exceptions/templates/etc.) Luckily, in most any environment you can name, installing a C compiler actually implicitly installs a C++ compiler as well; so I can hand my “C code” library to people and tell them it’s C, and the fact that there’re a few .cpp files in there won’t be a problem, any more than having some .asm files in there would be. I’d like to use std::string as well, but I want my code to externally obey the C FFI, rather than the C++ one (I.e. no need for the linking code to know it needs to initialize the C++ runtime), so I can’t really use any STL. Still wishing C had a standard, portable, found-in-all-compilers prefix-length strings library...

flohofwoe 5y ago
> Why did that never become a C feature, anyway? I would rather ask, why did C++ add another reference type next to pointers ;) PS: the important part is that libraries have a C API, whether the implementation underneath is written in C or C++ isn't all that important. But IMHO once you're restricted to a C API anyway, writing the implementation in C too makes more sense because there's fewer situations where the implementation clashes with the interface.
- pjmlp 5y ago
  Because that allows for out parameters and referring to memory addresses without the unsafety of dealing with pointers, something that even ALGOL and PL/I supported.
  - flohofwoe 5y ago
    > allows for out parameters Out parameters are mostly a legacy feature from the time when C compilers didn't allow struct return values though, or implemented this inefficiently (besides, out parameters via pointers works too). > memory addresses without the unsafety of dealing with pointers I never understood the "increased safety" argument. C++ references can become dangling just as easily as pointers, and arguable they're even worse, because most of the time they look like regular value types.

kaba0 5y ago

Not trying to start a language war, but what exactly would you use C for? C++ is just as good at embedded, and you can use it as basically a slightly less foot-gunny C. And there is also Rust and Zig, if that’s not really what you want. I just can’t really use C with that amount of namespace pollution, at least namespaces should be added. And purely text-based macros are the worst thing ever.

pjmlp 5y ago
UNIX/POSIX clones.
david2ndaccount 5y ago
Rust is very, very complicated and Zig is not stable.