5 ms·

> "In the end, when I code in C++, it's because I believe my code will run faster" Completely agreed and exactly my point. I am not moving to Go because is sol

> "In the end, when I code in C++, it's because I believe my code will run faster" Completely agreed and exactly my point. I am not moving to Go because is solving problems that I don't have. Pike said: "That way of thinking just isn't the way Go operates. Zero cost isn't a goal, at least not zero CPU cost." So Go's philosophy is to make some compromises for the sake of making programmer's life easier. C++ is the other way around, there is a cost the programmer has to pay in other to have code abstractions without impact the performance. I don't think anyone "loves" to code in C++, but people tend to like the performance that C++ provides and are eager to pay the cost of programming in a monster language that no simple person fully understand.

jawr 13y ago
I used to really enjoy writing C++, but that feeling can be compared to doing a really big workout. It's a gratifying hurt.
hackinthebochs 13y ago
I love coding in C++. The feeling of being so close to the metal that your actions are directly controlling the machine is something that was lost immediately when I moved to Java. It even more of a disconnect in higher level languages.
- twoodfin 13y ago
  I have sort of the opposite feeling: I love that in C++ I can create very nice abstractions while being fairly confident that the compiler will transform them into code with C-like performance. That is, as long as you know what to avoid (namely: heap allocations and unnecessary copying).
  - bjz_ 13y ago
    Exactly. That is what is lost in most of these debates. In order to move forward in the design of systems programming languages, we must first recognize what makes C++ great, in spite of its deep flaws.
  - Pxtl 13y ago
    This is the thing. This is what gets lost. C++ was designed with the premise that the language allows you to use it both in a C-like context and a Java-like context. The problem is that some of the baggage of the former interferes with the latter. C++ is danged ugly in some places in ways that could be expressed cleanly in higher-level languages. That's what C++ coders want - C++ with modules and real generics and fast compile-times and ways to cleanly implement and use garbage-collection if you so choose. A language that lets you say incredibly complicated and detailed things, and then lets you abstract them away into a library or a class or some other unit of organization that lets another coder use your stuff without absorbing the complexity. All these "C++ replacements" assume that the solution is to gut out all the C-like stuff. What they should be looking to do is giving developers clean alternatives to the C-like stuff, including ways for the hardcore developers to provide their own clean alternatives to the C-like stuff. Don't give us garbage collection, give us the tools to write libraries that provide clean garbage collection to a developer.
    - pmelendez 13y ago
      >"This is what gets lost. C++ was designed with the premise that the language allows you to use it both in a C-like context and a Java-like context." I got lost with the "Java-like context" thing. If I am not mistaken, by the time that C++ was designed there no language with a GB other than Lisp dialects. Jav a would appear like 12 years after, so I am not sure what you mean with Java-lik e context. As for the design goals of C++, I think was actually to create a superset of C t hat allow to give abstraction facilities that C doesn't have (starting with OOP but right now way more than that)
      - pjmlp 13y ago
        If by GB you mean garbage collection. Lisp, Smalltalk, Ada, Simula, ML, ... Simula was the inspiration for C++ by the way.
- efdee 13y ago
  Replace C++ with assemblee and Java with C/C++ and the statement is still true. Funny how that works...
  - seertaak 13y ago
    True, but append "while retaining access to my favourite high-level abstractions like classes, generic containers and algorithms" and now it is no longer true. That's the difference: in C++ you get the abstractions -- just like in Java -- but you don't pay for them. For the record: I used Java extensively in my previous job. It's a language I love, and I do think there are many areas where its speed is sufficient. But I'm also quite fond of C++, and there is this nice feeling of "woah, it doesn't really get faster than this, and it's still readable and elegant!" :)
    - pmelendez 13y ago
      >"That's the difference: in C++ you get the abstractions -- just like in Java -- but you don't pay for them" That's not enterally true, you do pay for them, not in performance but in productivity. C++ is a complex language and even Alexandrescu touched this subject in Going Native 2013, he said something like "C++ is a language for experts"
      - pjmlp 13y ago
        And Java is a language for offshoring projects with lower skill developers. Not bashing the language, just stating the sad state of affairs.
kybernetyk 13y ago
> I don't think anyone "loves" to code in C++ I do. :)

jawr 13y ago

I used to really enjoy writing C++, but that feeling can be compared to doing a really big workout. It's a gratifying hurt.

hackinthebochs 13y ago

I love coding in C++. The feeling of being so close to the metal that your actions are directly controlling the machine is something that was lost immediately when I moved to Java. It even more of a disconnect in higher level languages.

twoodfin 13y ago
I have sort of the opposite feeling: I love that in C++ I can create very nice abstractions while being fairly confident that the compiler will transform them into code with C-like performance. That is, as long as you know what to avoid (namely: heap allocations and unnecessary copying).
- bjz_ 13y ago
  Exactly. That is what is lost in most of these debates. In order to move forward in the design of systems programming languages, we must first recognize what makes C++ great, in spite of its deep flaws.
- Pxtl 13y ago
  This is the thing. This is what gets lost. C++ was designed with the premise that the language allows you to use it both in a C-like context and a Java-like context. The problem is that some of the baggage of the former interferes with the latter. C++ is danged ugly in some places in ways that could be expressed cleanly in higher-level languages. That's what C++ coders want - C++ with modules and real generics and fast compile-times and ways to cleanly implement and use garbage-collection if you so choose. A language that lets you say incredibly complicated and detailed things, and then lets you abstract them away into a library or a class or some other unit of organization that lets another coder use your stuff without absorbing the complexity. All these "C++ replacements" assume that the solution is to gut out all the C-like stuff. What they should be looking to do is giving developers clean alternatives to the C-like stuff, including ways for the hardcore developers to provide their own clean alternatives to the C-like stuff. Don't give us garbage collection, give us the tools to write libraries that provide clean garbage collection to a developer.
  - pmelendez 13y ago
    >"This is what gets lost. C++ was designed with the premise that the language allows you to use it both in a C-like context and a Java-like context." I got lost with the "Java-like context" thing. If I am not mistaken, by the time that C++ was designed there no language with a GB other than Lisp dialects. Jav a would appear like 12 years after, so I am not sure what you mean with Java-lik e context. As for the design goals of C++, I think was actually to create a superset of C t hat allow to give abstraction facilities that C doesn't have (starting with OOP but right now way more than that)
    - pjmlp 13y ago
      If by GB you mean garbage collection. Lisp, Smalltalk, Ada, Simula, ML, ... Simula was the inspiration for C++ by the way.
efdee 13y ago
Replace C++ with assemblee and Java with C/C++ and the statement is still true. Funny how that works...
- seertaak 13y ago
  True, but append "while retaining access to my favourite high-level abstractions like classes, generic containers and algorithms" and now it is no longer true. That's the difference: in C++ you get the abstractions -- just like in Java -- but you don't pay for them. For the record: I used Java extensively in my previous job. It's a language I love, and I do think there are many areas where its speed is sufficient. But I'm also quite fond of C++, and there is this nice feeling of "woah, it doesn't really get faster than this, and it's still readable and elegant!" :)
  - pmelendez 13y ago
    >"That's the difference: in C++ you get the abstractions -- just like in Java -- but you don't pay for them" That's not enterally true, you do pay for them, not in performance but in productivity. C++ is a complex language and even Alexandrescu touched this subject in Going Native 2013, he said something like "C++ is a language for experts"
    - pjmlp 13y ago
      And Java is a language for offshoring projects with lower skill developers. Not bashing the language, just stating the sad state of affairs.

kybernetyk 13y ago

> I don't think anyone "loves" to code in C++ I do. :)