3 ms·

> The complexity you are required to manage in order to push the limits of C++ makes doing so not worth it. Sometimes the point is just having it possible. Som

by josefx 4y ago

> The complexity you are required to manage in order to push the limits of C++ makes doing so not worth it. Sometimes the point is just having it possible. Sometimes I need to get that last bit of performance out of some code. > (in particular, Lisp and Scheme-like languages If your performance requirements are more in the scripted range then C++ will seem like overkill. I often use python for quick and dirty tools, however every other time I end up rewriting things in C++ because something that should finish almost instantly takes half an hour.

nocman 4y ago
> Sometimes the point is just having it possible. Sometimes I need to get that last bit of performance out of some code I'm talking about complexity beyond using a small subset of C++ features, things like template metaprogramming (but not limited to that). > If your performance requirements are more in the scripted range then C++ will seem like overkill. I often use python for quick and dirty tools, however every other time I end up rewriting things in C++ because something that should finish almost instantly takes half an hour. I have a wide range of requirements depending on what I am working on. I can still drop down to a C or C++ level if I need to, but if I do use C++ it will only be a limited subset that minimizes complexity. Also, you imply that Lisp and Scheme-like languages are limited to performance on par with Python or other so-called "scripting languages". There are languages in that vein that can perform very close to C's performance (Gambit Scheme being one such example). Often instead of rewriting in a lower-level language, you can use optimizations in the language to improve performance. Of course you can also just rewrite smaller portions of code in C or C++ and call that code from another language. I'm not someone who just dabbled in C++ for a little while and gave up. I have decades of experience with it. I wanted to use it beyond "C plus a little extra", but I found that the further from a C-like subset I went the more incidental complexity I had to deal with, and in the end the benefits I was looking for just never materialized.

by josefx 4y ago

nocman 4y ago

> Sometimes the point is just having it possible. Sometimes I need to get that last bit of performance out of some code I'm talking about complexity beyond using a small subset of C++ features, things like template metaprogramming (but not limited to that). > If your performance requirements are more in the scripted range then C++ will seem like overkill. I often use python for quick and dirty tools, however every other time I end up rewriting things in C++ because something that should finish almost instantly takes half an hour. I have a wide range of requirements depending on what I am working on. I can still drop down to a C or C++ level if I need to, but if I do use C++ it will only be a limited subset that minimizes complexity. Also, you imply that Lisp and Scheme-like languages are limited to performance on par with Python or other so-called "scripting languages". There are languages in that vein that can perform very close to C's performance (Gambit Scheme being one such example). Often instead of rewriting in a lower-level language, you can use optimizations in the language to improve performance. Of course you can also just rewrite smaller portions of code in C or C++ and call that code from another language. I'm not someone who just dabbled in C++ for a little while and gave up. I have decades of experience with it. I wanted to use it beyond "C plus a little extra", but I found that the further from a C-like subset I went the more incidental complexity I had to deal with, and in the end the benefits I was looking for just never materialized.