4 ms·

C++ offers lots of compelling things for embedded use cases, like enum classes (finally fixed in C23), constexpr, std::optional, namespaces, and atomics/generic

C++ offers lots of compelling things for embedded use cases, like enum classes (finally fixed in C23), constexpr, std::optional, namespaces, and atomics/generics that are much smaller dumpster fires. There's an effort to extract the good parts and make it work for embedded use cases or even bring them into C. Khalil Estelle on WG21 has been working on an experimental, deterministic runtime for exception handling, to give one example. Constexpr is an example of the latter that's now showing up in C23.

tjoff 2y ago
I don't disagree, but these are in the ~2% convenience at most. With the huge baggage of including C++ in a project. The cost of learning C++ easily outweighs all those benefits. If you happen to have a proficient C++ team (that actually know embedded), go for it!
- AlotOfReading 2y ago
  Speaking more broadly than just the std implementation, but result types like optional shouldn't be a 2% convenience, they should be used in most function calls that return errors. Rust is the obvious example here.
  - tjoff 2y ago
    If you argue for Rust I'm all for it, arguably much less of a learning curve than C++ too.
    - Ragnarork 2y ago
      Strong disagree on that one. Even though C++ has a lot of features that take a while to learn, getting started with C++ is simpler by miles than getting started with Rust. One exception to that in my experience: dependencies, although I think that's a bit deceiving as yes, it's easier to get dependencies in Rust but in some areas they're way less mature and can sometimes be a pain to work with (usually when dealing with big C or C++ libraries that have been quickly glued to a Rust interface to be available in Rust).
      - tjoff 2y ago
        Agree, writing bad C++ is easy. But being competent in C++ requires much more than being competent in rust. And not being competent in C++ is not great. You are going to be much more productive in C. The feedback loop is much faster, that is, feedback from your designs. Contrast with Rust which is harder to get going but doesn't require nearly as much to be decent.

tjoff 2y ago

I don't disagree, but these are in the ~2% convenience at most. With the huge baggage of including C++ in a project. The cost of learning C++ easily outweighs all those benefits. If you happen to have a proficient C++ team (that actually know embedded), go for it!

AlotOfReading 2y ago
Speaking more broadly than just the std implementation, but result types like optional shouldn't be a 2% convenience, they should be used in most function calls that return errors. Rust is the obvious example here.
- tjoff 2y ago
  If you argue for Rust I'm all for it, arguably much less of a learning curve than C++ too.
  - Ragnarork 2y ago
    Strong disagree on that one. Even though C++ has a lot of features that take a while to learn, getting started with C++ is simpler by miles than getting started with Rust. One exception to that in my experience: dependencies, although I think that's a bit deceiving as yes, it's easier to get dependencies in Rust but in some areas they're way less mature and can sometimes be a pain to work with (usually when dealing with big C or C++ libraries that have been quickly glued to a Rust interface to be available in Rust).
    - tjoff 2y ago
      Agree, writing bad C++ is easy. But being competent in C++ requires much more than being competent in rust. And not being competent in C++ is not great. You are going to be much more productive in C. The feedback loop is much faster, that is, feedback from your designs. Contrast with Rust which is harder to get going but doesn't require nearly as much to be decent.