4 ms·

And this is what I don't really understand. Python or Ruby are excellent in the domain you talk about, but I would always, always reach for C++ over C if given

by yuushi 14y ago

And this is what I don't really understand. Python or Ruby are excellent in the domain you talk about, but I would always, always reach for C++ over C if given the choice. The C++ standard library for me alone makes this such a simple choice. A lot of C code to me just looks horribly ugly these days - stuff like: int compare(const void *a, const void *b) { return *((int*)a) < *((int*)b); } Yuck.

tptacek 14y ago
On the other hand, the mechanism by which that code works is simple to understand and keep in your head at all times, and isn't inelegant. I find that very valuable.
- yuushi 14y ago
  Except it has absolutely no type safety whatsoever. With modern-style C++, you can do the same thing in exactly 1 line: std::sort(begin(array), end(array), [](int a, int b) { return a < b; }); Versus: qsort(array, MAX_VAL, sizeof(int), compare); With compare as defined before. I mean, sure, it's just sorting and it's a tiny example, but to me it shows a lot about why I prefer C++ over C: typesafety, readability, reduced possibility of buffer overflows, reduced possibility of segfaults based on incorrect element access, speed thanks to code inlining vs function pointers...
  - temujin 14y ago
    Yes, std::sort is better than qsort on simple types, but that's an isolated case. I'm currently working on a major "C++" project where literally the only C++ dependency is std::sort right now.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    I've coded in C since 1993, shipped commercial systems C code from 1996 through ~2004 (with an 3-year C++ interlude in there), and continued to write C code on projects from then today. In that time, the number of bugs I've dealt with due to the lack of type safety on a void* is: zero. Lest you think I'm being cavalier about this, I've been writing professional Ruby since ~2006, and have since then been routinely aggravated by bugs that would have been mitigated by type safety. I buy type safety. But it's a continuum of value, not a core principle of development. In idiomatic C code, void* is a way of dropping in and out of static typing, usually to pass values of arbitrary types to a generic container library or through a callback. The use of void* doesn't surrender type safety throughout the program. Idiomatic C code casts a specific type to void* at the call site of the function that handles generic types, and casts it back to that specific type the moment that library hands it back. Of the arguments C++ devotees marshall against C, I find this one among the fudliest.
    - yuushi 14y ago
      I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then. Perhaps you are a far more conscientious programmer than many out there; the number of buffer overflow exploits would suggest so. C++ doesn't make you immune to such things, but it does give you the tools to make such things less likely to occur. Further, I like compiler-enforced type safety. For when C was created, utilization of void* was a brilliant idea. Language design has moved on since then, and as much as many people really hate template-based C++ code, I honestly welcome it in comparison.
krichman 14y ago
That's strawman C. We could just as easily write hideous C++, Ruby, Python, etc. code and complain about that. Edit: By this I mean; if you want to prefer the C++ libraries, that's fine, but please don't claim C is inherently ugly.
- yuushi 14y ago
  How is it strawman C? If you want to use qsort, which anyone who has used C for any amount of time has, it's something you've written many times.
  - krichman 14y ago
    I think I misinterpreted your argument as being about the syntax instead of the type system. I would actually prefer the option of a stricter type system in C.

by yuushi 14y ago

tptacek 14y ago

On the other hand, the mechanism by which that code works is simple to understand and keep in your head at all times, and isn't inelegant. I find that very valuable.

yuushi 14y ago
Except it has absolutely no type safety whatsoever. With modern-style C++, you can do the same thing in exactly 1 line: std::sort(begin(array), end(array), [](int a, int b) { return a < b; }); Versus: qsort(array, MAX_VAL, sizeof(int), compare); With compare as defined before. I mean, sure, it's just sorting and it's a tiny example, but to me it shows a lot about why I prefer C++ over C: typesafety, readability, reduced possibility of buffer overflows, reduced possibility of segfaults based on incorrect element access, speed thanks to code inlining vs function pointers...
- temujin 14y ago
  Yes, std::sort is better than qsort on simple types, but that's an isolated case. I'm currently working on a major "C++" project where literally the only C++ dependency is std::sort right now.
- tptacek 14y ago
  I've coded in C since 1993, shipped commercial systems C code from 1996 through ~2004 (with an 3-year C++ interlude in there), and continued to write C code on projects from then today. In that time, the number of bugs I've dealt with due to the lack of type safety on a void* is: zero. Lest you think I'm being cavalier about this, I've been writing professional Ruby since ~2006, and have since then been routinely aggravated by bugs that would have been mitigated by type safety. I buy type safety. But it's a continuum of value, not a core principle of development. In idiomatic C code, void* is a way of dropping in and out of static typing, usually to pass values of arbitrary types to a generic container library or through a callback. The use of void* doesn't surrender type safety throughout the program. Idiomatic C code casts a specific type to void* at the call site of the function that handles generic types, and casts it back to that specific type the moment that library hands it back. Of the arguments C++ devotees marshall against C, I find this one among the fudliest.
  - yuushi 14y ago
    I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then. Perhaps you are a far more conscientious programmer than many out there; the number of buffer overflow exploits would suggest so. C++ doesn't make you immune to such things, but it does give you the tools to make such things less likely to occur. Further, I like compiler-enforced type safety. For when C was created, utilization of void* was a brilliant idea. Language design has moved on since then, and as much as many people really hate template-based C++ code, I honestly welcome it in comparison.

krichman 14y ago

That's strawman C. We could just as easily write hideous C++, Ruby, Python, etc. code and complain about that. Edit: By this I mean; if you want to prefer the C++ libraries, that's fine, but please don't claim C is inherently ugly.

yuushi 14y ago
How is it strawman C? If you want to use qsort, which anyone who has used C for any amount of time has, it's something you've written many times.
- krichman 14y ago
  I think I misinterpreted your argument as being about the syntax instead of the type system. I would actually prefer the option of a stricter type system in C.