5 ms·

Pray tell us, where does C++ need to be? All C++ programmers who I have talked to welcome most things in C++11. It simplifies their C++-code in many ways. As a

Pray tell us, where does C++ need to be? All C++ programmers who I have talked to welcome most things in C++11. It simplifies their C++-code in many ways. As an example: specifying how to capture variables was something they were already dealing with when writing functors manually, now they have a shorthand syntax for it. As for the reason why non-C++ programmers don't like C++, perhaps you are in a better position to say.

protomyth 13y ago
Is there a book that teaches best practice C++11 without teaching any of the old cruft?
- angersock 13y ago
  Only the good parts: http://www.amazon.com/C-Programming-Language-2nd-Edition/dp/0131103628 http://www.amazon.com/C-Programming-Language-2nd-Edition/dp/...
  - protomyth 13y ago
    What an amazingly unhelpful, snarky, useless comment. If you don't like the question or I guess the topic, just skip it.
    - angersock 13y ago
      You're more likely to find up-to-date and useful resources on the 'net then in a dead-tree form. Moreover, you aren't likely to be able to write any meaningful code without cruft, because you'll have to use existing libraries, where that cruft lives. Giving you a reference to writing C properly--something most folks still don't do--is actually somewhat helpful as opposed to pure snark. Does C++ have a fixed ABI yet? Is there a fixed name-mangling scheme across compilers? How do I bind other languages to the lambdas?
      - protomyth 13y ago
        No, its just pure snark. C and C++ are long different. I love K&R[1] C, but is really doesn't show properly written C unless some update occurs that addresses the newer standards and all the fun memory issues. > Does C++ have a fixed ABI yet? Is there a fixed name-mangling scheme across compilers? How do I bind other languages to the lambdas? Pretty useless for the purpose of my question. I was asking a simple question, your just in it to spread snark. 1) The original edition was one of my favorite books and what I used to learn C back in the day.
- dman 13y ago
  http://www.artima.com/shop/overview_of_the_new_cpp http://www.artima.com/shop/overview_of_the_new_cpp
betterunix 13y ago
"Pray tell us, where does C++ need to be?" In my honest opinion, C++ needs to separate low level concerns from high level constructs. How variables are captured in lexical closures is a very low-level concern, but lexical closures are a high-level construct -- by mixing in such low-level details, the overall utility of closures in C++ is reduced. This is made even worse by the fact that the programmer must manually maintain the lexical environment of the closure -- and the new "smart pointers" are only marginally helpful, not nearly as robust as a modern garbage collector (which can, oddly enough, improve performance). C++ could be a really great language if these things were better separated. I write my code in Lisp, and when I have low-level needs I usually have to write some C code and use an FFI. It gets the job done but it is awful to debug and there is a performance hit. C++ is in a much better position: you can write low-level code, or you can write high-level code, or both, and no language barriers need to be crossed (reducing costs in various places). "As for the reason why non-C++ programmers don't like C++, perhaps you are in a better position to say." Well, aside from what I mentioned above, I can give you one more: extending the language. You have a few narrow ways to do it, and then you are just stuck. Operator overloading is great, but what if you want to add a new operator? What if you want to change how your type checker works, so that you can have a dependent type system? There are a few hacks that people can do with templates, but on the whole adding a new feature basically means rewriting your compiler (see e.g. what it took to get support for lexical closures), and C++ compilers are pretty hard to write in the first place. This is something of a Lisper gripe, though there are a few languages beyond Lisp that allow programmers to add new syntax or semantics.
- angersock 13y ago
  I love C++ to death--it gives me a level of control I need to get at very small fiddly bits when I need to, and also to abstract away great swathes of things when I want to. That said, I very much agree with your point--the middle ground between those two modes is cluttered and there lies madness. The problem with the new features of C++11/14/42 is that they are never going to remove the existing jank of the language; these folks don't seem to understand--or want to understand--that there is never going to be a magical fucking tabula rasa onto which they'll scrawl their code, unless they want to rewrite all the things from scratch (which may actually be a good idea). That being the case, they're going to get run circles around by people who either stick to existing jank and libraries or use a language with a better set of batteries and more flexibility (Ruby, Python, etc.). The power and speed of C++ is not worth the difficulty, usually, of finding people who can use it properly.
Aldo_MX 13y ago
> Is there a book that teaches best practice C++11 without teaching any of the old cruft? http://www.stroustrup.com/4th.html http://www.stroustrup.com/4th.html
- protomyth 13y ago
  This might sound like an odd question, but what font are the code examples in? I had an older version of the book that had all the code examples in a proportional italics font and it was some of the toughest reading I have done.
  - Someone 13y ago
    The preview at http://www.amazon.com/The-Programming-Language-hardcover-Edition/dp/0321958322/ref=dp_ob_title_bk/177-8158106-6280708 http://www.amazon.com/The-Programming-Language-hardcover-Edi... shows a proportional dark blue font, with comments in italics, at least in the paperback edition (is color printing that cheap nowadays?) The blue looks problematic on screen. I don't remember having problems with the font in the print edition.
vidarh 13y ago
> As for the reason why non-C++ programmers don't like C++, perhaps you are in a better position to say. As an ex-C++ programmer who did in fact do a large-scale web application deployment in C++ back in '99, and who used to do template meta-programming for fun: It's too verbose. C++11 does go some way to alleviate that, and might slow the number of people leaving C++, but it's unlikely to bring many people back, as the performance difference matters less and less, and the performance of language implementations for the languages people have jumped ship for (Ruby in my case) keeps getting better, narrowing the gap (and we already decided we could tolerate the much larger performance gaps of the past when we left in the first place).

protomyth 13y ago

Is there a book that teaches best practice C++11 without teaching any of the old cruft?

angersock 13y ago
Only the good parts: http://www.amazon.com/C-Programming-Language-2nd-Edition/dp/0131103628 http://www.amazon.com/C-Programming-Language-2nd-Edition/dp/...
- protomyth 13y ago
  What an amazingly unhelpful, snarky, useless comment. If you don't like the question or I guess the topic, just skip it.
  - angersock 13y ago
    You're more likely to find up-to-date and useful resources on the 'net then in a dead-tree form. Moreover, you aren't likely to be able to write any meaningful code without cruft, because you'll have to use existing libraries, where that cruft lives. Giving you a reference to writing C properly--something most folks still don't do--is actually somewhat helpful as opposed to pure snark. Does C++ have a fixed ABI yet? Is there a fixed name-mangling scheme across compilers? How do I bind other languages to the lambdas?
    - protomyth 13y ago
      No, its just pure snark. C and C++ are long different. I love K&R[1] C, but is really doesn't show properly written C unless some update occurs that addresses the newer standards and all the fun memory issues. > Does C++ have a fixed ABI yet? Is there a fixed name-mangling scheme across compilers? How do I bind other languages to the lambdas? Pretty useless for the purpose of my question. I was asking a simple question, your just in it to spread snark. 1) The original edition was one of my favorite books and what I used to learn C back in the day.
dman 13y ago
http://www.artima.com/shop/overview_of_the_new_cpp http://www.artima.com/shop/overview_of_the_new_cpp

betterunix 13y ago

"Pray tell us, where does C++ need to be?" In my honest opinion, C++ needs to separate low level concerns from high level constructs. How variables are captured in lexical closures is a very low-level concern, but lexical closures are a high-level construct -- by mixing in such low-level details, the overall utility of closures in C++ is reduced. This is made even worse by the fact that the programmer must manually maintain the lexical environment of the closure -- and the new "smart pointers" are only marginally helpful, not nearly as robust as a modern garbage collector (which can, oddly enough, improve performance). C++ could be a really great language if these things were better separated. I write my code in Lisp, and when I have low-level needs I usually have to write some C code and use an FFI. It gets the job done but it is awful to debug and there is a performance hit. C++ is in a much better position: you can write low-level code, or you can write high-level code, or both, and no language barriers need to be crossed (reducing costs in various places). "As for the reason why non-C++ programmers don't like C++, perhaps you are in a better position to say." Well, aside from what I mentioned above, I can give you one more: extending the language. You have a few narrow ways to do it, and then you are just stuck. Operator overloading is great, but what if you want to add a new operator? What if you want to change how your type checker works, so that you can have a dependent type system? There are a few hacks that people can do with templates, but on the whole adding a new feature basically means rewriting your compiler (see e.g. what it took to get support for lexical closures), and C++ compilers are pretty hard to write in the first place. This is something of a Lisper gripe, though there are a few languages beyond Lisp that allow programmers to add new syntax or semantics.

angersock 13y ago
I love C++ to death--it gives me a level of control I need to get at very small fiddly bits when I need to, and also to abstract away great swathes of things when I want to. That said, I very much agree with your point--the middle ground between those two modes is cluttered and there lies madness. The problem with the new features of C++11/14/42 is that they are never going to remove the existing jank of the language; these folks don't seem to understand--or want to understand--that there is never going to be a magical fucking tabula rasa onto which they'll scrawl their code, unless they want to rewrite all the things from scratch (which may actually be a good idea). That being the case, they're going to get run circles around by people who either stick to existing jank and libraries or use a language with a better set of batteries and more flexibility (Ruby, Python, etc.). The power and speed of C++ is not worth the difficulty, usually, of finding people who can use it properly.

Aldo_MX 13y ago

> Is there a book that teaches best practice C++11 without teaching any of the old cruft? http://www.stroustrup.com/4th.html http://www.stroustrup.com/4th.html

protomyth 13y ago
This might sound like an odd question, but what font are the code examples in? I had an older version of the book that had all the code examples in a proportional italics font and it was some of the toughest reading I have done.
- Someone 13y ago
  The preview at http://www.amazon.com/The-Programming-Language-hardcover-Edition/dp/0321958322/ref=dp_ob_title_bk/177-8158106-6280708 http://www.amazon.com/The-Programming-Language-hardcover-Edi... shows a proportional dark blue font, with comments in italics, at least in the paperback edition (is color printing that cheap nowadays?) The blue looks problematic on screen. I don't remember having problems with the font in the print edition.

vidarh 13y ago

> As for the reason why non-C++ programmers don't like C++, perhaps you are in a better position to say. As an ex-C++ programmer who did in fact do a large-scale web application deployment in C++ back in '99, and who used to do template meta-programming for fun: It's too verbose. C++11 does go some way to alleviate that, and might slow the number of people leaving C++, but it's unlikely to bring many people back, as the performance difference matters less and less, and the performance of language implementations for the languages people have jumped ship for (Ruby in my case) keeps getting better, narrowing the gap (and we already decided we could tolerate the much larger performance gaps of the past when we left in the first place).