5 ms·

> Depends on how strongly you mean "no other option". For example, is Rust another option? What I tend to think people mean when they say that, is that you hav

by Dewie 12y ago

> Depends on how strongly you mean "no other option". For example, is Rust another option? What I tend to think people mean when they say that, is that you have some cycles to "waste" on a simpler - while also being high level - language. > Here's my standard example for when I would happily choose C++: I think the standard examples are certain application-level programs.

k__ 12y ago
> What I tend to think people mean when they say that, is that you have some cycles to "waste" on a simpler language. Isn't C simpler than C++ and doesn't waste cycles? The only "no other option" scenario I could imagine is, legacy code in C++ or using a framework that needs C++.
- Dewie 12y ago
  > Isn't C simpler than C++ and doesn't waste cycles? I should have added "and also high level". I did that now.
- maxlybbert 12y ago
  > Isn't C simpler than C++ and doesn't waste cycles? I gave a couple of C++ books to a recent CS graduate. She assured me that C++ would be easy to pick up because it has a much smaller standard library than Java. I smiled but didn't say any anything. Yes, C is simpler than C++. But that simplicity comes with a cost, mainly that the programmer has to keep track of more details. And the C standard library is smaller than the C++ standard library (and that would be true even if the C++ standard library didn't include the C standard library).
cbd1984 12y ago
Another thing to think about: Program in C++ if you have memory to waste on leaks, or time to waste on plugging leaks. GC induces things that are arguably leaks, but in the average case they're controlled; leaks in C++ grow without bound in the average case.
- 72deluxe 12y ago
  This leaks argument is really getting old. I have no leaks in my code. C++11's addition of move semantics and using references everywhere makes pointers unnecessary for the most part. You can use STL containers for putting your items into so shouldn't see raw "new" or "delete" operations in your own code very much; this is particularly true where you define your own move operators and move constructors. Even "old" C++ should have no leaks if you use RAII properly, have clearly defined container classes, use references everywhere or const pointers if you must. If you write sloppy code, you get sloppy output. See Stroustrup's "The C++ Programming Language Fourth Edition" (the blue book) section 3.3.3 Resource Management and 3.2.1.2 "A Container", where in this early part of the book Stroustrup explicitly directs to 'avoid "naked" new and delete operations" and to "use resource handles and RAII to manage resources". EDIT: Wahay getting downvoted - thanks! In any other language (eg. PHP) if there was a vocal crowd complaining about how their scripts are slow when they do something stupid like fetching an entire database table and then doing filtering within the PHP script itself, everyone would say "But you're doing something stupid - it is going to be slow" and nobody would argue with it. With C++, when you point out that someone is doing something foolish, you get downvoted and people start making arguments about features of the language instead to detract from the truth that you've highlighted, ie "but a good language wouldn't let you do dangerous things", which is the same as saying "knives can cut you - ban all knives!!". It's really wearisome, and always rears its head here on HN where C++ is NOT the language of the day.
  - pif 12y ago
    Just wondering: why the downvotes?
    - Aldo_MX 12y ago
      HN Users have a constructor similar to this one. class HNUser { public: HNUser() { if (commentPraisesCorCPP()) Downvote(); } };
  - cbd1984 12y ago
    I upvoted you twice, in case you care. You raise some good points; the problem is, they both point the way to using languages other than C++: You essentially advocate using a subset of C++ (everyone does, even Stroustrup), and the subset of C++ you advocate is the high-level one with a maximal amount of automatic resource management, whether by templates or RAII. OK, if I'm doing that, I obviously don't care about the manual resource management part of C++, so why shouldn't I use a language which gives me all of that and more? Are the performance gains from using that subset of C++ compared to something else even perceptible?

by Dewie 12y ago

k__ 12y ago

> What I tend to think people mean when they say that, is that you have some cycles to "waste" on a simpler language. Isn't C simpler than C++ and doesn't waste cycles? The only "no other option" scenario I could imagine is, legacy code in C++ or using a framework that needs C++.

Dewie 12y ago
> Isn't C simpler than C++ and doesn't waste cycles? I should have added "and also high level". I did that now.
maxlybbert 12y ago
> Isn't C simpler than C++ and doesn't waste cycles? I gave a couple of C++ books to a recent CS graduate. She assured me that C++ would be easy to pick up because it has a much smaller standard library than Java. I smiled but didn't say any anything. Yes, C is simpler than C++. But that simplicity comes with a cost, mainly that the programmer has to keep track of more details. And the C standard library is smaller than the C++ standard library (and that would be true even if the C++ standard library didn't include the C standard library).

cbd1984 12y ago

Another thing to think about: Program in C++ if you have memory to waste on leaks, or time to waste on plugging leaks. GC induces things that are arguably leaks, but in the average case they're controlled; leaks in C++ grow without bound in the average case.

72deluxe 12y ago
This leaks argument is really getting old. I have no leaks in my code. C++11's addition of move semantics and using references everywhere makes pointers unnecessary for the most part. You can use STL containers for putting your items into so shouldn't see raw "new" or "delete" operations in your own code very much; this is particularly true where you define your own move operators and move constructors. Even "old" C++ should have no leaks if you use RAII properly, have clearly defined container classes, use references everywhere or const pointers if you must. If you write sloppy code, you get sloppy output. See Stroustrup's "The C++ Programming Language Fourth Edition" (the blue book) section 3.3.3 Resource Management and 3.2.1.2 "A Container", where in this early part of the book Stroustrup explicitly directs to 'avoid "naked" new and delete operations" and to "use resource handles and RAII to manage resources". EDIT: Wahay getting downvoted - thanks! In any other language (eg. PHP) if there was a vocal crowd complaining about how their scripts are slow when they do something stupid like fetching an entire database table and then doing filtering within the PHP script itself, everyone would say "But you're doing something stupid - it is going to be slow" and nobody would argue with it. With C++, when you point out that someone is doing something foolish, you get downvoted and people start making arguments about features of the language instead to detract from the truth that you've highlighted, ie "but a good language wouldn't let you do dangerous things", which is the same as saying "knives can cut you - ban all knives!!". It's really wearisome, and always rears its head here on HN where C++ is NOT the language of the day.
- pif 12y ago
  Just wondering: why the downvotes?
  - Aldo_MX 12y ago
    HN Users have a constructor similar to this one. class HNUser { public: HNUser() { if (commentPraisesCorCPP()) Downvote(); } };
- cbd1984 12y ago
  I upvoted you twice, in case you care. You raise some good points; the problem is, they both point the way to using languages other than C++: You essentially advocate using a subset of C++ (everyone does, even Stroustrup), and the subset of C++ you advocate is the high-level one with a maximal amount of automatic resource management, whether by templates or RAII. OK, if I'm doing that, I obviously don't care about the manual resource management part of C++, so why shouldn't I use a language which gives me all of that and more? Are the performance gains from using that subset of C++ compared to something else even perceptible?