9 ms·

As someone who tried learning C++ a few years ago this is (personally) my biggest gripe with the language and this gif[0] perfectly sums it up. Gave up and star

by volsa_ 4y ago

As someone who tried learning C++ a few years ago this is (personally) my biggest gripe with the language and this gif[0] perfectly sums it up. Gave up and started learning Rust instead, which I'm very happy about in hindsight. [0] https://twitter.com/timur_audio/status/1004017362381795329 https://twitter.com/timur_audio/status/1004017362381795329

alfiedotwtf 4y ago
Same here... I got through Stroustrup and thought I'm not smart enough to write this error free. Been happy with Rust ever since.
- cyber_kinetist 4y ago
  It’s all fun and games until you find the need to unsafe Rust, which opens up a bunch of eldritch monstrosities that are sometimes even harder to tame than C++. The happiness people get from Rust was achieved by the incredibly hard work of library developers who had to deal with all sorts of complex semantics under the hood to make safe Rust safe. The knowledge gap between library user and library writer is even worse than C++, where most people do not feel comfortable enough to actually write low-level libraries (custom data structures, bindings from C, optimized routines) in Rust. (At least PL people are inventing things like stacked borrows to make writing unsafe Rust easier… but it’s still not easy.)
  - unrealhoang 4y ago
    on the other hand, that makes Rust's learning curve way way more gradual than C++. An intermediate programmer with 3 months of Rust experience can reliably and confidently cobble up the libraries together to contribute to the project. Whereas such programmer will be a heavy burden (for other seasoned devs to guide/review/feedback) in a C++ project. Also, building low-level libraries that work correctly, efficiently, relatively-safely in C++ is NOT a simple feat, and requires years of experience (on API design). With unsafe Rust you can just fuzz/brute force out the unsoundness with the safe API.
  - spoiler 4y ago
    > It’s all fun and games until you find the need to unsafe Rust, which opens up a bunch of eldritch monstrosities that are sometimes even harder to tame than C++ Lol what? Unsafe is literally the only "mode" in C++. I'm not trying to shill Rust, but this is not true, and I don't know where you've read that opinion. Unsafe Rust is just Rust with the ability to use "C++ style" pointers. > The happiness people get from Rust was achieved by the incredibly hard work of library developers I'll give you that writing Rust libraries is harder, but that's true for any language. Even C++. Do Rust developers go the extra mile to make libraries ergonomic and have nice APIs? Yes! But that's not really a "problem" with Rust, it's something Rust enables, and now the community expects. C++ libraries in my experience tend to be a very bare minimum, and to use some of them it requires hundreds of lines of set up code. In cases where Rust libs require that much set up code, the authors go the extra mile to create macros or additional succinct APIs. So, yeah, their job is harder because they are held to a higher standard than C++ libraries, if anything. Also, most of the effort with authoring Rust libraries is writing documentation, which is practically a requirement, whereas with most C++ libs (even some sections of boost!) you practically weep tears of joy when you see five lines written above a one class in a sea of classes. > who had to deal with all sorts of complex semantics under the hood to make safe Rust safe. The knowledge gap between library user and library writer is even worse than C++, where most people do not feel comfortable enough to actually write low-level libraries (custom data structures, bindings from C, optimized routines) in Rust. Sorry to be so blunt and call you out, but this is just so devoid of any sensible thought. Most people don't feel comfortable writing low level libraries. Period. Regardless of language. For every library author, there's dozens of not hundreds of non-libray developers. Hell, most developers don't even contribute anything to open source in general, but just consume it. So pretending C++ is this magical fairytale land where everyone produces libraries with the flick of a wrist is just bullshit.
    - pjmlp 4y ago
      It is true, it certainly is. Which is why, those of use that want some Rust like confort, when C++ is part of the diet, turn on bounds checking (#define _ITERATOR_DEBUG_LEVEL 1 on VC++), and make use of static analysis during the whole development (/analyze on VC++). It is bullet proof? No, but it does help surving a couple of shots.
- boppo1 4y ago
  Which Stoustrup, principles or the c++ language tome?
  - alfiedotwtf 4y ago
    The C++ Language book. I enjoyed it up to the first half, but then was deer in headlights for the rest. Maybe it felt like all the rules were too big to fit in my head, but it personally felt like an overwhelming language.
ncmncm 4y ago
Fortunately, those can almost all be ignored almost all the time. Rust will seem fine until you are writing a library and find no way to express what would make the library nicer to use; or you find using some library awkward and error-prone. Almost every C++ feature is designed to enable delivering more powerful libraries, and they compound. So, in C++ you as library writer are empowered to make the use of your library correct by construction: what compiles is safe and correct. Rust makes the compiler responsible for memory safety, but offers much less to make using your library pleasant and foolproof.
- volsa_ 4y ago
  > but offers much less to make using your library pleasant and foolproof Not my experience so far, I might go as far and say it makes it more foolproof because when writing your library you have the option to return an `Option` or `Result` enum.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Option and Result types are as easily coded in C++. The former is in the Standard C++ library. The latter will be in the next, but anyway the one in Boost has worked fine forever. Throwing, instead, is a choice unavailable to Rust coders, so you often have no alternative but to return these more complicated things that users are then obliged to unpack. A standard macro makes that easier, and is semantically equivalent to throwing, but imposes substantial overhead on successful calls.
    - Rusky 4y ago
      C++'s option and result types are much larger, uglier, and harder to use correctly than Rust's. The shift from throwing to returning a Result is not really an increase in complexity- closer to a reshuffling of syntax. But that's not really all that relevant either, because comparing languages at this level of detail misses the forest for the trees. An interesting comparison takes a step back and compares which problems the languages (try to) solve. Often something that appears to be a clear win for one or the other turns out to be a non-issue.

by volsa_ 4y ago

alfiedotwtf 4y ago

Same here... I got through Stroustrup and thought I'm not smart enough to write this error free. Been happy with Rust ever since.

cyber_kinetist 4y ago
It’s all fun and games until you find the need to unsafe Rust, which opens up a bunch of eldritch monstrosities that are sometimes even harder to tame than C++. The happiness people get from Rust was achieved by the incredibly hard work of library developers who had to deal with all sorts of complex semantics under the hood to make safe Rust safe. The knowledge gap between library user and library writer is even worse than C++, where most people do not feel comfortable enough to actually write low-level libraries (custom data structures, bindings from C, optimized routines) in Rust. (At least PL people are inventing things like stacked borrows to make writing unsafe Rust easier… but it’s still not easy.)
- unrealhoang 4y ago
  on the other hand, that makes Rust's learning curve way way more gradual than C++. An intermediate programmer with 3 months of Rust experience can reliably and confidently cobble up the libraries together to contribute to the project. Whereas such programmer will be a heavy burden (for other seasoned devs to guide/review/feedback) in a C++ project. Also, building low-level libraries that work correctly, efficiently, relatively-safely in C++ is NOT a simple feat, and requires years of experience (on API design). With unsafe Rust you can just fuzz/brute force out the unsoundness with the safe API.
- spoiler 4y ago
  > It’s all fun and games until you find the need to unsafe Rust, which opens up a bunch of eldritch monstrosities that are sometimes even harder to tame than C++ Lol what? Unsafe is literally the only "mode" in C++. I'm not trying to shill Rust, but this is not true, and I don't know where you've read that opinion. Unsafe Rust is just Rust with the ability to use "C++ style" pointers. > The happiness people get from Rust was achieved by the incredibly hard work of library developers I'll give you that writing Rust libraries is harder, but that's true for any language. Even C++. Do Rust developers go the extra mile to make libraries ergonomic and have nice APIs? Yes! But that's not really a "problem" with Rust, it's something Rust enables, and now the community expects. C++ libraries in my experience tend to be a very bare minimum, and to use some of them it requires hundreds of lines of set up code. In cases where Rust libs require that much set up code, the authors go the extra mile to create macros or additional succinct APIs. So, yeah, their job is harder because they are held to a higher standard than C++ libraries, if anything. Also, most of the effort with authoring Rust libraries is writing documentation, which is practically a requirement, whereas with most C++ libs (even some sections of boost!) you practically weep tears of joy when you see five lines written above a one class in a sea of classes. > who had to deal with all sorts of complex semantics under the hood to make safe Rust safe. The knowledge gap between library user and library writer is even worse than C++, where most people do not feel comfortable enough to actually write low-level libraries (custom data structures, bindings from C, optimized routines) in Rust. Sorry to be so blunt and call you out, but this is just so devoid of any sensible thought. Most people don't feel comfortable writing low level libraries. Period. Regardless of language. For every library author, there's dozens of not hundreds of non-libray developers. Hell, most developers don't even contribute anything to open source in general, but just consume it. So pretending C++ is this magical fairytale land where everyone produces libraries with the flick of a wrist is just bullshit.
  - pjmlp 4y ago
    It is true, it certainly is. Which is why, those of use that want some Rust like confort, when C++ is part of the diet, turn on bounds checking (#define _ITERATOR_DEBUG_LEVEL 1 on VC++), and make use of static analysis during the whole development (/analyze on VC++). It is bullet proof? No, but it does help surving a couple of shots.
boppo1 4y ago
Which Stoustrup, principles or the c++ language tome?
- alfiedotwtf 4y ago
  The C++ Language book. I enjoyed it up to the first half, but then was deer in headlights for the rest. Maybe it felt like all the rules were too big to fit in my head, but it personally felt like an overwhelming language.

ncmncm 4y ago

Fortunately, those can almost all be ignored almost all the time. Rust will seem fine until you are writing a library and find no way to express what would make the library nicer to use; or you find using some library awkward and error-prone. Almost every C++ feature is designed to enable delivering more powerful libraries, and they compound. So, in C++ you as library writer are empowered to make the use of your library correct by construction: what compiles is safe and correct. Rust makes the compiler responsible for memory safety, but offers much less to make using your library pleasant and foolproof.

volsa_ 4y ago
> but offers much less to make using your library pleasant and foolproof Not my experience so far, I might go as far and say it makes it more foolproof because when writing your library you have the option to return an `Option` or `Result` enum.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Option and Result types are as easily coded in C++. The former is in the Standard C++ library. The latter will be in the next, but anyway the one in Boost has worked fine forever. Throwing, instead, is a choice unavailable to Rust coders, so you often have no alternative but to return these more complicated things that users are then obliged to unpack. A standard macro makes that easier, and is semantically equivalent to throwing, but imposes substantial overhead on successful calls.
  - Rusky 4y ago
    C++'s option and result types are much larger, uglier, and harder to use correctly than Rust's. The shift from throwing to returning a Result is not really an increase in complexity- closer to a reshuffling of syntax. But that's not really all that relevant either, because comparing languages at this level of detail misses the forest for the trees. An interesting comparison takes a step back and compares which problems the languages (try to) solve. Often something that appears to be a clear win for one or the other turns out to be a non-issue.