6 ms·

At what point does a C++ programmer like yourself just switch to something that advertises safety but also C like performance? At what point does it get so diff

At what point does a C++ programmer like yourself just switch to something that advertises safety but also C like performance? At what point does it get so difficult to write robust, “safe” C++ that one switches languages? How necessary is all this safety, even? (Doh! Of course it’s necessary for hardening your software against bugs and making the overall ecosystem safer).

snovv_crash 4y ago
The complexity of C++ lives primarily in the fact that it is almost entirely backwards compatible all the way back to the late 1980s, and mostly compatible all the way back to K&R C. Modern C++, when you stick to the new idioms (RAII, range loops, auto lambdas etc) is almost as compact and succinct as Python with type annotations. One of the biggest differences is readability is that the standard library is not "batteries included" so people roll a lot of stuff themselves.
ncmncm 4y ago
Much of what can usefully be written in C++ cannot be expressed at all in other languages, Rust included. Thus, for serious users, switching would mean a big step down. Most of the powerful, unique features are there to help encapsulate semantics in libraries, enabling libraries to adapt automatically to circumstances of use without loss of performance. As a result, libraries in C++ can be more powerful and useful. The more a library is used, the more resources are available to optimize and test it, so libraries can become extremely robust.
- oncewas 4y ago
staticassertion 4y ago
Ultimately, it doesn't really matter. People will continue to write C++ so we should continue to provide resources that encourage doing so as safely as possible.
restalis 4y ago
That "safe (by default)" aspect of a given programming language isn't free. It's similar to the security of a system that comes at the expense of its usability. The direction C++ developed itself was to provide performance and usability. A programming language that puts safety first has to be more than a useful tool, it has to be a mentor at best and a bureaucrat at worst. When touting the safe languages people have to be aware of survivorship bias, that countless projects never got the chance to be developed due to the too high of a burden of doing it properly in them (i.e. in a safe manner, in the way "safe" is defined by language designers). But then again, there may be cases when this development cost may not be that bothersome compared to other aspects (e.g. a corporation willing to hire more developers to compensate for the lost effort if thus it gets to hire fast and cheap - pretty much whomever manages to please the compiler, no in-depth skills screening necessary, the shipped code guaranteed to be safe anyway).
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Rust fans rely on the compiler to enforce safety, to the exclusion of other qualities. In C++, we rely on libraries to provide safety and also those other qualities, so library authors get powerful features to enable that. In practice, people writing modern C++ code do not struggle with memory safety, so it has been a good trade. People avoiding modern coding style, such as Lakos and his minions (and, apparently, Fuschia and Chrome authors) do not get that benefit.
  - oncewas 4y ago
    Rust requires you to write correct code. And no, lots of people using modern C++ do struggle with safety, and specifically memory safety. That's why these new languages exist, and exactly why they are gaining users every single day. No matter what someone on hacker news says... This doesn't mean c or c++ are bad or something. But, yea...
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      Rust does not, in fact, require you to write correct code. No language can do that. The best a language can do is make it harder to write certain kinds of incorrect code. And, libraries coded in a powerful language can do that, too.
imron 4y ago
> At what point does a C++ programmer like yourself just switch to something that advertises safety but also C like performance? As a former diehard c++ developer, modern c++ was the reason I started learning Rust. All the good parts of modern c++, without any of the legacy baggage holding it back, and avoiding all of the things that made modern c++ necessary in the first place. I still program in c++ professionally but only for legacy programs. For anything new I would avoid it in favour of a modern language.
Taywee 4y ago
Not that commenter, but I'm also a C++ programmer by trade who uses Rust wherever I can. Often, I can't use Rust because of platform support (AIX in my case), or because I need to use libraries or existing C++ code that uses heavy C++ template stuff, making writing a wrapper infeasible. C++ is not by best friend by far, but I'm happy to gain any convenience and safety where I can get it in the language that I use regularly.
- pjmlp 4y ago
  AIX! Still using XCOFF with import libraries?
  - Taywee 4y ago
    That's right. And they still have the wonky "shared object in an ar archive" setup for shared libraries. For passers-by: Linux has static libs as .a files, indexed ar archives with object files in them, and ELF shared objects as .so shared libraries. In AIX, .a ar archives may hold object files to be static libs, they may hold shared objects to be treated as a shared library (a lot of shared libraries on AIX are .a files rather than .so), and they may hold both 64 and 32 bit files of each to support multiple architectures. A single .a file can be a 32 bit static library, a 64 bit static library, a 32 bit shared library, and a 64 bit shared library all in one. It has some convenience, in that all the different types of libraries for a package can be found in one place, but I've always found it annoying, especially when you have very specific goals to accomplish and need some libraries linked statically and others dynamically.
    - pjmlp 4y ago
      Thank for the update, AIX 5 on RS/6000 was the last time I used it. It felt a bit ironic using a UNIX that was to certain extent similar to Windows in some workflows.
gigatexal 4y ago
I wanted to add that I have been a fan and in awe of C++ programmers for a long time but would never consider myself strong enough at it to critique it without looking like a fool. I just know what I've read and am curious. So if anything I said offended any C++ devs I never meant it to. The discussion that has been had has been awesome.

snovv_crash 4y ago

The complexity of C++ lives primarily in the fact that it is almost entirely backwards compatible all the way back to the late 1980s, and mostly compatible all the way back to K&R C. Modern C++, when you stick to the new idioms (RAII, range loops, auto lambdas etc) is almost as compact and succinct as Python with type annotations. One of the biggest differences is readability is that the standard library is not "batteries included" so people roll a lot of stuff themselves.

ncmncm 4y ago

Much of what can usefully be written in C++ cannot be expressed at all in other languages, Rust included. Thus, for serious users, switching would mean a big step down. Most of the powerful, unique features are there to help encapsulate semantics in libraries, enabling libraries to adapt automatically to circumstances of use without loss of performance. As a result, libraries in C++ can be more powerful and useful. The more a library is used, the more resources are available to optimize and test it, so libraries can become extremely robust.

oncewas 4y ago

staticassertion 4y ago

Ultimately, it doesn't really matter. People will continue to write C++ so we should continue to provide resources that encourage doing so as safely as possible.

restalis 4y ago

That "safe (by default)" aspect of a given programming language isn't free. It's similar to the security of a system that comes at the expense of its usability. The direction C++ developed itself was to provide performance and usability. A programming language that puts safety first has to be more than a useful tool, it has to be a mentor at best and a bureaucrat at worst. When touting the safe languages people have to be aware of survivorship bias, that countless projects never got the chance to be developed due to the too high of a burden of doing it properly in them (i.e. in a safe manner, in the way "safe" is defined by language designers). But then again, there may be cases when this development cost may not be that bothersome compared to other aspects (e.g. a corporation willing to hire more developers to compensate for the lost effort if thus it gets to hire fast and cheap - pretty much whomever manages to please the compiler, no in-depth skills screening necessary, the shipped code guaranteed to be safe anyway).

ncmncm 4y ago
Rust fans rely on the compiler to enforce safety, to the exclusion of other qualities. In C++, we rely on libraries to provide safety and also those other qualities, so library authors get powerful features to enable that. In practice, people writing modern C++ code do not struggle with memory safety, so it has been a good trade. People avoiding modern coding style, such as Lakos and his minions (and, apparently, Fuschia and Chrome authors) do not get that benefit.
- oncewas 4y ago
  Rust requires you to write correct code. And no, lots of people using modern C++ do struggle with safety, and specifically memory safety. That's why these new languages exist, and exactly why they are gaining users every single day. No matter what someone on hacker news says... This doesn't mean c or c++ are bad or something. But, yea...
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Rust does not, in fact, require you to write correct code. No language can do that. The best a language can do is make it harder to write certain kinds of incorrect code. And, libraries coded in a powerful language can do that, too.

imron 4y ago

> At what point does a C++ programmer like yourself just switch to something that advertises safety but also C like performance? As a former diehard c++ developer, modern c++ was the reason I started learning Rust. All the good parts of modern c++, without any of the legacy baggage holding it back, and avoiding all of the things that made modern c++ necessary in the first place. I still program in c++ professionally but only for legacy programs. For anything new I would avoid it in favour of a modern language.

Taywee 4y ago

Not that commenter, but I'm also a C++ programmer by trade who uses Rust wherever I can. Often, I can't use Rust because of platform support (AIX in my case), or because I need to use libraries or existing C++ code that uses heavy C++ template stuff, making writing a wrapper infeasible. C++ is not by best friend by far, but I'm happy to gain any convenience and safety where I can get it in the language that I use regularly.

pjmlp 4y ago
AIX! Still using XCOFF with import libraries?
- Taywee 4y ago
  That's right. And they still have the wonky "shared object in an ar archive" setup for shared libraries. For passers-by: Linux has static libs as .a files, indexed ar archives with object files in them, and ELF shared objects as .so shared libraries. In AIX, .a ar archives may hold object files to be static libs, they may hold shared objects to be treated as a shared library (a lot of shared libraries on AIX are .a files rather than .so), and they may hold both 64 and 32 bit files of each to support multiple architectures. A single .a file can be a 32 bit static library, a 64 bit static library, a 32 bit shared library, and a 64 bit shared library all in one. It has some convenience, in that all the different types of libraries for a package can be found in one place, but I've always found it annoying, especially when you have very specific goals to accomplish and need some libraries linked statically and others dynamically.
  - pjmlp 4y ago
    Thank for the update, AIX 5 on RS/6000 was the last time I used it. It felt a bit ironic using a UNIX that was to certain extent similar to Windows in some workflows.

gigatexal 4y ago

I wanted to add that I have been a fan and in awe of C++ programmers for a long time but would never consider myself strong enough at it to critique it without looking like a fool. I just know what I've read and am curious. So if anything I said offended any C++ devs I never meant it to. The discussion that has been had has been awesome.