Interview With Herb Sutter

Anonymous Coward writes "Herb Sutter, a C++ luminary, recently joined Microsoft's Developer Platform and Evangelism Division, where he acts as a liaison between Microsoft and the C++ developer community. In this interview he speaks about his new job, the role of C++ in the .NET framework, and the current state of C++."

Comments

Re:VC++ will provide what the community needs...

[x0n]

Nope, it definitely doesn't work.

c:\linux\src\kernel>nmake
Microsoft (R) 32-bit C/C++ Optimizing Compiler Version 13.00.9466 for 80x86
Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation 1984-2001. All rights reserved.

kernel.c
kernel.c(3) : error : Invalid token : expecting "(C)", found "GPL".

compile aborted.
c:\linux\src\kernel>

bugger.

ANSI C++ compliance

[YeeHaW_Jelte]

I find it pretty strange that the same guy who is secretary in the standards committe now works for a company that market a definetly non-standard compatible C++ developement suite.
I've worked with Visual Studio in the past, and was always irritated by the microsoft-specific stuff and especially the automatically generated code, which is inserted at compilation time and thus can't be read or seen. I don't like using mystery code in my appilications.

Re:ANSI C++ compliance

[jdennett]

You shouldn't find it so strange that a "guy which is secretary in the standards committee" works for a company which has recently declared its intention to change its ways and produce a fully conforming C++ compiler. Their internal build supports partial specialization now, and in fact most stuff other than export. It's finally getting to be about as compliant as compilers from other companies.

Did you know that Microsoft has relatively recently rejoined the C++ standards process, and even hosted the last ISO/ANSI C++ meeting? That's quite a turnaround.

After a little initial concern, I'm pleased to have someone with Herb's integrity working inside Microsoft. Over recent months (indeed, even before Herb joined MS) we've finally seen a willingness from Microsoft to discuss the flaws of VC++, and what they plan to do about it.

We can't assume that MS will play fair forever in this area, but we shouldn't assume that they'll double-cross the community. Much though the quality (or lack thereof) in VC++ annoyed me, I'm willing to give them the benefit of what little doubt is left. VC++7.0 is a step forward, and the next release is make-or-break in terms of the credibility of MS's C++ development team. If it's up with the leading group they'll have won the (possibly grudging) respect of large parts of the C++ community. If not, they might not get another chance so easily again.

Re:ANSI C++ compliance

[David Kennedy]

Get it right people; it's an ISO standard, not an ANSI standard. If nothing else this is a useful interview answer!

As for Herb Sutter - I believe him when he says he's to going to compromise his standards work. I don't believe MS, but Herb Sutter's books have earned him my respect.

Re:ANSI C++ compliance

[PhilHibbs]

I was at the ACCU Conference that Herb mentions in his speech, and at the end of the first day there was a special last-minute session scheduled with Herb and Stan, called "Revelation on the road to redmond". It was quite interesting, and when Herb introduced the man who had implemented partial specialisation in Visual C++, there was a tremendous round of applause! And this was not a conference full of Microsoft flunkies, far from it.

The upshot is, MS have an internal build of MSVC that will compile Loki. It should be available around the end of this year.

Re:VC++ will provide what the community needs...

[TummyX]

So... when are we going to see the linux kernel compiled on VC++?


Considering the linux kernel uses non standardised GCC extensions...i doubt it.

And what about the Visual Studio .NET license?

[jamwyd]

Fair enough, but given that Herb Sutter is an authority and "evangelist" on C++ in general - how can he reconcile his new position with the new licenses MS are attaching to their development tools which seem to prohibit any GPL'd application (e.g. GCC) linking against their .NET library?

Re:Mmmm.... smart move, but seems a "bazaar" appro

[jdennett]

Herb is the creator and sole mind behind the "Guru of the Week" series, not just one of a panel.

He's also a moderator of comp.lang.c++.moderated, and recently has also joined the comp.std.c++ moderation panel, on which I also sit.

His "Exceptional C++" and "More Exceptional C++" books are more than just printed copies of the GotW material, which is freely available online.
Exceptional C++ in particular is a fine book, and all truly serious C++ programmers should read it.

Re:Might just be me

[Harri]

it seems.. well.. wrong, for someone recommending the C++ standard to be part of ANY commercial company who's job it is to write C++ code.

The C++ language is _for_ people who write C++ code. Are you seriously suggesting that the majority of the users of a language should be banned from participating in the standards process, because they get money for doing their job?

I am hoping you really meant that the people who write the compilers should not be allowed input: but even this is impractical, since nobody wants a standard full of features which turn out in practice to be unimplementable.

C++ is *not* a good cross-platform language

[evbergen]

From the article:

"Q: Standard C++ doesn't support modern programming concepts such as multithreading, distributed computing, components, and persistence. The result is a plethora of proprietary libraries and platform-dependent frameworks that make cross-platform development in C++ nearly impossible. Is Standard C++ still relevant? Which features would you like to see added to the language in the future?

A: Again, these questions arise from an overstated premise. Thousands of companies are routinely writing and shipping cross-platform software written in C++. Claiming that it's "nearly impossible" doesn't change the fact that we've been doing it for years. The one big area I can think of where portability is genuinely difficult is one the question didn't mention -- GUIs. GUI portability is a problem in all languages, unless you give up writing rich GUIs and write only simple and limited ones. Interestingly, despite some languages' attempts to "standardize" cross-platform GUI libraries, the best and most successful solution for cross-platform GUIs is not a code library at all, but HTML."

Well, that proves the point, doesn't it -- HTML + JavaScript is apparently a "language" that people find better suited to define standard, cross-platform GUIs in than C++!

The reason may very well be that C++ GUIs tend to they tie in to too many features of the underlying platform to be portable. If you /do/ want portabilty, you're on your own: you'll have to invent your own abstraction layer in order to achieve it. Obviously, some succeed better than others in that respect, and as he says, it doesn't keep people from trying.

It seems that any language that uses a runtime (for HTML+JavaScript, that's the browser; for Java, that's the JVM; for Scheme, that's Emacs :P), is much better for offering cross-platform services and libraries, simply because the burden does not lie upon each and every individual library developer anymore to create a platform abstraction layer. That only has to be done once, by the runtime.

Really, this is not exactly a mind-shattering concept (USCD-Pascal on p-Code anyone?)

Not that the current state of affairs with HTML+Javascript or Java gives much reason to feel content, but I *definitely* still see the point of having a runtime that offers a standard, special-purpose language to define GUIs.

However, I think the API for such a runtime should be viewed more as a data protocol than as a set of language-specific functions to call.

And *that* really applies to more than just GUIs: there really is a need for portable APIs that are not tied to any language these days, if you look at those complex, horrible 800lb monstrosities like Corba, COM or .NET. But I think the reason why these are so big and ugly is because they want to make it possible to put the interface at every conceivable place. Of course the interfaces will be complex if you do that.

Why not focus on *data-centric* APIs instead, that are intended to be put where the interface is as thin as possible, and build them as efficient and robust as an internet protocol should be?

If you're thinking of XML now, that may be close, but I really can't see how XML is the most efficient and easy-to-implement way of transmitting trees of attribute/value pairs. It's too difficult and slow to parse, to start using it as a transport for local subsystem calls as well, and contains too much redundancy, such as named close tags.

What the Internet and your local system needs is a good OSI layer 5. Is HTTP + XML really the best thing we can come up with?

Re:There are NO standard compliant c++ compilers

[Harri]

It's the library that comes with this book

http://cseng.aw.com/book/0,3828,0201704315,00.ht ml

It uses enough of the corners of the language that most compilers have problems compiling it.

The book itself is very very good: all experienced C++ developers ought to read it.

That's because you don't want to hear...

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

It's a terrible language with NO pre-thought design...

Interesting, then, that its history is so well-documented, and Stroustrup himself has written a whole book on how the language was designed, the rationale behind each feature that was, or was not, provided, and other historical reasoning behind decisions that were made. Where's the Java or C# equivalent?

...that is so badly broken that nobody has EVER made a fully compliant compiler (or, indeed, is even CAPABLE of making a fully complaint compiler...

Well, except for the currently-under-test Comeau compiler, which provides just about everything there is, and the internal code at MS, which is rumoured to support pretty much everything except export, anyway.

I'm desperately hoping for C# to take over. Everything I've seen makes it a fair step up on C++.

Y'know what? I really hope you're wrong. But unlike you, I'm going to justify my position.

Firstly, I work at a software development house, and on a MLOC C++ project. Our clients just hired a new whizzkid just like you. They provided all the latest tools, and he's come up with this really cool interface using C# and .NET. The only slight problem is that, unlike many other languages, he can't figure out how to use the 500,000 lines of rigorously tested mathematics we've accumulated over the past decade, so his code is utterly useless. Had he written in any number of other languages that were designed to communicate freely rather than locking you into a pet framework with much hype but little real support, he wouldn't just have cost them thousands of pounds for a cute but useless prototype. So, that's one thing where C# has a long way to go to catch C++.

There are many more. The obvious and boring example is templates and the standard library. Then there are all the portability issues, but I suppose they don't count because .NET and the CLR are portable and support many platforms, languages, days of the week, etc. There's the teensy-weensy little issue of performance, which is pretty much untested in C# and .NET as yet. Don't you think the Java developers might have learned a trick or two in the past few years? There's the insistence on everything being an object, single inheritance and a common root, all of which are as flawed as they have ever been. And in return we have what? A garbage collector? They could at least have learned from Java's mistakes and provided a decent mechanism for managing other resources -- which C++ has had for years -- but they seem to have forgotten that people also need to close files, release locks, share databases and such. I could go on, but what's the point? You're obviously massively prejudiced and unwilling to make the effort to get anything worthwhile out of C++, so why bother?

Oh, and bad programmers can blow their feet off in every language I've ever written. Still, at least in C++, good programmers can be great.