4 ms·

Thanks for providing some specific examples! I still don't see how any of these would result in a 30% decrease in boilerplate. My main point was I feel like hea

by _gabe_ 4y ago

Thanks for providing some specific examples! I still don't see how any of these would result in a 30% decrease in boilerplate. My main point was I feel like header files are the biggest piece of boilerplate and it seems weird to accuse the lack of features in the standard library as a reason for all the boilerplate. Just a couple other points though, C++ provides fully customizable iterators. They don't have ranges, but ime the amount of times I need ranges vs just iterating over a container are relatively low. Also, is a lock guard in C++ not the same thing as a guarded mutex? This may be ignorance on my part because I'm not familiar with rust, but it sounds like the same thing to me. A lock guard will lock and automatically release a mutex once it goes out of the current scope.

lifthrasiir 4y ago
You have a good point that featureful standard library doesn't necessarily result in less boilerplate, but I assumed that you kinda implied it by enumerating features. Frankly almost every feature you and I listed is not exactly relevant here---most of them can be easily refactored into external libraries ;-) What I find most lacking from the C++ standard library is actually coherence. Different parts of standard library were developed separately from each other, and while adapters between them exists (e.g. stream iterators can be used with `std::format_to`) they are by definition boilerplates. Some parts are simply not relevant in the modern C++ programming and still have to be retained for compatibillity (e.g. `std::auto_ptr`). In this view C standard library is actually a lot more coherent than C++, even though C standard library itself is less powerful and featureful than C++. > They don't have ranges, but ime the amount of times I need ranges vs just iterating over a container are relatively low. I think this is simply because C++ iterators are less usable. All iterators can be technically rewritten as loops, so you may have internalized to avoid using iterators when iterators would be beneficial but difficult to use. I personally find myself using iterators a lot more in Rust than in C++. > Also, is a lock guard in C++ not the same thing as a guarded mutex? This may be ignorance on my part because I'm not familiar with rust, but it sounds like the same thing to me. A lock guard will lock and automatically release a mutex once it goes out of the current scope. I actually don't know the exact term (the name "guarded mutex/lock" was what I've used in the past), but I meant a mutex that is strongly coupled with some additional data so that the API prevents or at least discourages to access the data without acquiring the mutex. In a hypothetical design `std::mutexed<T>` will be `T` plus `std::mutex` and `std::lock_guard<std::mutexed<T>>` would have `operator *` which allows the access to `T`. In Rust [1] this is actually the default, and you never have a bare `std::mutex` (though it can be simulated with placeholder data, `Mutex<()>`). [1] https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/sync/struct.Mutex.html https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/sync/struct.Mutex.html
- _gabe_ 4y ago
  > You have a good point that featureful standard library doesn't necessarily result in less boilerplate, but I assumed that you kinda implied it by enumerating features. Gotcha, I appreciate the back and forth which helped me to clarify that point a bit better :) > What I find most lacking from the C++ standard library is actually coherence. I 100% agree. There are plenty of areas that C++ is very lacking, and I think this comment highlights that. I initially started this thread off because a big complaint I hear among C++ users is the language is a bloated mess, which is why the parent comment saying that C++ had a thin standard library didn't ring true to me. But I think what you're saying here is closer to the truth. It has a lot of good features, but they're mostly after thoughts and poorly integrated. Whereas a language like Rust (or another modern language) has around the same amount of features builtin, but they're more focused, integrated, and planned :)

by _gabe_ 4y ago

lifthrasiir 4y ago

You have a good point that featureful standard library doesn't necessarily result in less boilerplate, but I assumed that you kinda implied it by enumerating features. Frankly almost every feature you and I listed is not exactly relevant here---most of them can be easily refactored into external libraries ;-) What I find most lacking from the C++ standard library is actually coherence. Different parts of standard library were developed separately from each other, and while adapters between them exists (e.g. stream iterators can be used with `std::format_to`) they are by definition boilerplates. Some parts are simply not relevant in the modern C++ programming and still have to be retained for compatibillity (e.g. `std::auto_ptr`). In this view C standard library is actually a lot more coherent than C++, even though C standard library itself is less powerful and featureful than C++. > They don't have ranges, but ime the amount of times I need ranges vs just iterating over a container are relatively low. I think this is simply because C++ iterators are less usable. All iterators can be technically rewritten as loops, so you may have internalized to avoid using iterators when iterators would be beneficial but difficult to use. I personally find myself using iterators a lot more in Rust than in C++. > Also, is a lock guard in C++ not the same thing as a guarded mutex? This may be ignorance on my part because I'm not familiar with rust, but it sounds like the same thing to me. A lock guard will lock and automatically release a mutex once it goes out of the current scope. I actually don't know the exact term (the name "guarded mutex/lock" was what I've used in the past), but I meant a mutex that is strongly coupled with some additional data so that the API prevents or at least discourages to access the data without acquiring the mutex. In a hypothetical design `std::mutexed<T>` will be `T` plus `std::mutex` and `std::lock_guard<std::mutexed<T>>` would have `operator *` which allows the access to `T`. In Rust [1] this is actually the default, and you never have a bare `std::mutex` (though it can be simulated with placeholder data, `Mutex<()>`). [1] https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/sync/struct.Mutex.html https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/sync/struct.Mutex.html

_gabe_ 4y ago
> You have a good point that featureful standard library doesn't necessarily result in less boilerplate, but I assumed that you kinda implied it by enumerating features. Gotcha, I appreciate the back and forth which helped me to clarify that point a bit better :) > What I find most lacking from the C++ standard library is actually coherence. I 100% agree. There are plenty of areas that C++ is very lacking, and I think this comment highlights that. I initially started this thread off because a big complaint I hear among C++ users is the language is a bloated mess, which is why the parent comment saying that C++ had a thin standard library didn't ring true to me. But I think what you're saying here is closer to the truth. It has a lot of good features, but they're mostly after thoughts and poorly integrated. Whereas a language like Rust (or another modern language) has around the same amount of features builtin, but they're more focused, integrated, and planned :)