5 ms·

Why would you ever choose C anymore? The killer feature of C++ is “you don’t pay for what you don’t use”. There’s virtually no reason ever not to use C++.

LeFantome 5y ago
Isn’t “C++ is too complex for me” a decent reason?
- 1ris 5y ago
  It totally is, as long as you don't use C instead. There are plenty of good, less complex languages than C++ out there: Java is quite close and way, way less complex, for example. But C is non of them. Pointers are more complex in C than in C++ (pointer provenance). Casts are more complicated in C than in C++, as C++ named casts are less powerful and therefore give you less opportunity to shoot yourself in the foot. Strings (I'd guess quite important part of web programming) are a minefield in C, and they are so much better in C++. Resource management, memory ownership, object lifetimes. All very hairy in C++, all a good reason to not use C++. but also reasons to not use C. Types are a mess in C++. C is even weaker typed, making it worse. If you like procedural programming and dislike the complexities of C++, i suggest you write C++ without member functions, without inheritance and compiler disabled exceptions. It will feel similar, but it will be better. I suggest using a c++ compiler to write C with enum classes, std::span, either a typed std::span wrapper for malloc or std::vector<std::char8_t>, std::string, std::string_view,using, std::variant, std::unique_ptr, std::fmt, std::optional, templates, std::vector for your types, in that order. And don't use C style var-args and C style enums, C style unions. You can have very C-Like code, that is way less complex than C.
  - RTFM_PLEASE 5y ago
    Yeah, I'm just going to keep writing C. Thanks.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - xondono 5y ago
    > There are plenty of good, less complex languages than C++ out there […] But C is non of them. To this day I cannot understand how anybody can claim that. C++ is so ridiculously complex that it’s not a superset of C mostly because of added keywords and rules, some of them implicit. > I suggest using a c++ compiler to write C with enum classes, std::span, either a typed std::span wrapper for malloc or std::vector<std::char8_t>, std::string, std::string_view,using, std::variant, std::unique_ptr, std::fmt, std::optional, templates, std::vector for your types, in that order. How on earth do you write that and expect me to believe it’s simpler than C? You’ve just listed a number of options on how to implement an *enum* of all things. Each one will have different pros and cons, and I’m supposed to weight them before coding? > Pointers are more complex in C than in C++ That’s impossible from you own statement. Pointers in C can be more dangerous because the compiler won’t stop you from doing crazy shit, I’d buy that, but complex? C++ feels like the Mikrotik version of C, there’s just too many options and buttons and switches, and I won’t use half of this in my life! I guess some people find it interesting but I’m just trying to get my job done.
    - widdershins 5y ago
      You can think of simplicity in various ways - some subset of which are valid. For example, you could say that using std::unique_ptr is simpler than manual memory management, because it automates much of the process, making it less likely that a developer will make a mistake. Or you could say that the 1000s of lines of C++ std code that you will pull in represents an increase of complexity, because the mechanics are hidden under layers of abstraction. I'm open to both views, and most importantly to trade-off one against the other according to other constraints and context. For me, using C++ allows me to do that, because it's (mostly) a superset of C. Acknowledging, of course, that this brings a trade-off of its own, because decisions must continually made (and enforced) about what std/external libraries to use and when.
      - xondono 5y ago
        I’m willing to buy that abstractions reduce complexity, but to do that they can’t be leaky abstractions. They should “just work”, and it should be easy to choose among them. If you need to consider what’s underneath, how is that a reduction in complexity? C++ abstractions are the opposite. You need to ponder the several options, normally tagged by their implementation details.
- slt2021 5y ago
  Object Pascal/Free Pascal then is the obvious choice, it is The better C.
  - FpUser 5y ago
    I do use Lazarus/FreePascal for multiplatform GUI apps. It is also very easy to write servers in. Unfortunately performance is worse vs C/C++ and frankly "batteries" included in C++ are way more powerful and simpler to use so I choose C++ for backends. As for all that FUD around C++ - I am not C++ expert at all but I find modern C++ to be very productive, fast for backend development and pretty safe unless one's goal is to purposely shoot themselves in the foot.
    - int_19h 5y ago
      What batteries are included in C++? There's the STL, but most of the rest is a mess to the point it's actively avoided in favor of alternatives (iostreams, locale). Now if you do something like C++ with Qt, that's a very different proposition - but that applies both to batteries being included, and to the overall coding style.
na85 5y ago
>Why would you ever choose C anymore? I can't speak to why you'd want to use C in a web stack, but I can weigh in in the more general sense: A while ago I thought I'd try my hand at the Cryptopals challenges, and I figured, hey all the security guys know C (and python, but ugh) so I'll use this as an opportunity to really learn C. Prior to starting that project, I "knew" C, in the sense that I took CS036 which was taught in that small subset of C++ that might as well be C. So I jumped in and it felt really liberating, at first. You want to compare chars? It's just a number, use >= and <= ! Cast it back and forth to different types! Implement base64 by just using a character array of the encoding alphabet and just walk through it like an array and do magic casts! No stupid boilerplate like namespaces or static class main{}! Then by about the 2nd set where you have to start attacking AES ECB I realized I was spending more time debugging my mallocs/frees and my fucking off-by-one errors than I was spending on actually learning crypto. I stuck with it until I think part way through the third set but by that point I couldn't take it any more. So I bailed out of C and never looked back. I can see how a certain type of programmer (who is more practiced with malloc/fastidious with their array indices and loop bounds than I am) can really enjoy C for a certain type of work. But I can actually say now, hand on heart, that I know C; and I don't like it.
- gypsyharlot 5y ago
  Brilliant summary of the path that a lot of C-programmers have taken.
Zababa 5y ago
> The killer feature of C++ is “you don’t pay for what you don’t use” In what way C makes you pay for what you don't use?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
kloch 5y ago
The last time I looked at c++ (mid-1990's) it generated hugely bloated binaries and was generally slower at runtime than plain C. Is that still true today? Is there any language (other than assembly) that is faster at runtime than C today?

LeFantome 5y ago

Isn’t “C++ is too complex for me” a decent reason?

1ris 5y ago
It totally is, as long as you don't use C instead. There are plenty of good, less complex languages than C++ out there: Java is quite close and way, way less complex, for example. But C is non of them. Pointers are more complex in C than in C++ (pointer provenance). Casts are more complicated in C than in C++, as C++ named casts are less powerful and therefore give you less opportunity to shoot yourself in the foot. Strings (I'd guess quite important part of web programming) are a minefield in C, and they are so much better in C++. Resource management, memory ownership, object lifetimes. All very hairy in C++, all a good reason to not use C++. but also reasons to not use C. Types are a mess in C++. C is even weaker typed, making it worse. If you like procedural programming and dislike the complexities of C++, i suggest you write C++ without member functions, without inheritance and compiler disabled exceptions. It will feel similar, but it will be better. I suggest using a c++ compiler to write C with enum classes, std::span, either a typed std::span wrapper for malloc or std::vector<std::char8_t>, std::string, std::string_view,using, std::variant, std::unique_ptr, std::fmt, std::optional, templates, std::vector for your types, in that order. And don't use C style var-args and C style enums, C style unions. You can have very C-Like code, that is way less complex than C.
- RTFM_PLEASE 5y ago
  Yeah, I'm just going to keep writing C. Thanks.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- xondono 5y ago
  > There are plenty of good, less complex languages than C++ out there […] But C is non of them. To this day I cannot understand how anybody can claim that. C++ is so ridiculously complex that it’s not a superset of C mostly because of added keywords and rules, some of them implicit. > I suggest using a c++ compiler to write C with enum classes, std::span, either a typed std::span wrapper for malloc or std::vector<std::char8_t>, std::string, std::string_view,using, std::variant, std::unique_ptr, std::fmt, std::optional, templates, std::vector for your types, in that order. How on earth do you write that and expect me to believe it’s simpler than C? You’ve just listed a number of options on how to implement an *enum* of all things. Each one will have different pros and cons, and I’m supposed to weight them before coding? > Pointers are more complex in C than in C++ That’s impossible from you own statement. Pointers in C can be more dangerous because the compiler won’t stop you from doing crazy shit, I’d buy that, but complex? C++ feels like the Mikrotik version of C, there’s just too many options and buttons and switches, and I won’t use half of this in my life! I guess some people find it interesting but I’m just trying to get my job done.
  - widdershins 5y ago
    You can think of simplicity in various ways - some subset of which are valid. For example, you could say that using std::unique_ptr is simpler than manual memory management, because it automates much of the process, making it less likely that a developer will make a mistake. Or you could say that the 1000s of lines of C++ std code that you will pull in represents an increase of complexity, because the mechanics are hidden under layers of abstraction. I'm open to both views, and most importantly to trade-off one against the other according to other constraints and context. For me, using C++ allows me to do that, because it's (mostly) a superset of C. Acknowledging, of course, that this brings a trade-off of its own, because decisions must continually made (and enforced) about what std/external libraries to use and when.
    - xondono 5y ago
      I’m willing to buy that abstractions reduce complexity, but to do that they can’t be leaky abstractions. They should “just work”, and it should be easy to choose among them. If you need to consider what’s underneath, how is that a reduction in complexity? C++ abstractions are the opposite. You need to ponder the several options, normally tagged by their implementation details.
slt2021 5y ago
Object Pascal/Free Pascal then is the obvious choice, it is The better C.
- FpUser 5y ago
  I do use Lazarus/FreePascal for multiplatform GUI apps. It is also very easy to write servers in. Unfortunately performance is worse vs C/C++ and frankly "batteries" included in C++ are way more powerful and simpler to use so I choose C++ for backends. As for all that FUD around C++ - I am not C++ expert at all but I find modern C++ to be very productive, fast for backend development and pretty safe unless one's goal is to purposely shoot themselves in the foot.
  - int_19h 5y ago
    What batteries are included in C++? There's the STL, but most of the rest is a mess to the point it's actively avoided in favor of alternatives (iostreams, locale). Now if you do something like C++ with Qt, that's a very different proposition - but that applies both to batteries being included, and to the overall coding style.

na85 5y ago

>Why would you ever choose C anymore? I can't speak to why you'd want to use C in a web stack, but I can weigh in in the more general sense: A while ago I thought I'd try my hand at the Cryptopals challenges, and I figured, hey all the security guys know C (and python, but ugh) so I'll use this as an opportunity to really learn C. Prior to starting that project, I "knew" C, in the sense that I took CS036 which was taught in that small subset of C++ that might as well be C. So I jumped in and it felt really liberating, at first. You want to compare chars? It's just a number, use >= and <= ! Cast it back and forth to different types! Implement base64 by just using a character array of the encoding alphabet and just walk through it like an array and do magic casts! No stupid boilerplate like namespaces or static class main{}! Then by about the 2nd set where you have to start attacking AES ECB I realized I was spending more time debugging my mallocs/frees and my fucking off-by-one errors than I was spending on actually learning crypto. I stuck with it until I think part way through the third set but by that point I couldn't take it any more. So I bailed out of C and never looked back. I can see how a certain type of programmer (who is more practiced with malloc/fastidious with their array indices and loop bounds than I am) can really enjoy C for a certain type of work. But I can actually say now, hand on heart, that I know C; and I don't like it.

gypsyharlot 5y ago
Brilliant summary of the path that a lot of C-programmers have taken.

Zababa 5y ago

> The killer feature of C++ is “you don’t pay for what you don’t use” In what way C makes you pay for what you don't use?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

kloch 5y ago

The last time I looked at c++ (mid-1990's) it generated hugely bloated binaries and was generally slower at runtime than plain C. Is that still true today? Is there any language (other than assembly) that is faster at runtime than C today?