Slashdot Mirror
Are C and C++ Losing Ground?
Pickens writes "Dr. Dobbs has an interesting interview with Paul Jansen, the managing director of TIOBE Software, about the Programming Community Index, which measures the popularity of programming languages by monitoring their web presence. Since the TIOBE index has been published now for more than 6 years, it gives an interesting picture about trends in the usage of programming languages. Jansen says not much has affected the top ten programming languages in the last five years, with only Python entering the top 10 (replacing COBOL), but C and C++ are definitely losing ground. 'Languages without automated garbage collection are getting out of fashion,' says Jansen. 'The chance of running into all kinds of memory problems is gradually outweighing the performance penalty you have to pay for garbage collection.'"
C/C++ will always be there. Period. Just look at all of the C/C++ projects on SourceForge. New languages will come and go, but C/C++ are just too stable to go so quickly.
Need an automatic screenshot taker? Try here.
I know I am gonna get flamed for this, but they said web programming, like its the only game out there. Sure its not web 2.0 friendly, and sure most web script kiddies don't use it...mainly because it don't hold their hand, but its far from dead when your are needing to squeeze every last ounce of power out of your hardware, or even that other 25-30% of it.
I develop desktop application software. Right now I wouldn't think about using anything else but C++.
For image processing (film/video), real-time audio or any serious signal processing, the overhead of anything but C/C++ is killer. It'll be news when Adobe After Effects or Autodesk Flame is rewritten in python.
Besides, measuring the popularity of a language by the size of its web presence is the worst kind of fallacious reasoning.
C and C++ are entrenched, but it was never their stability which caused it. Computer languages are theoretical; one valid language is just as 'stable' as another. The real issue of stability lies in the implementation, and that is language-independent.
Anyway, C is going to stick around because it is the most superb assembly language developed by man. C++ will of course stay around as well, but by modern standards it fails as a "high-level" language. The ceiling got a lot higher in the intervening 20 years; other languages reach much higher in a very useful way. I'd be happy to see less C++.
Cretin - a powerful and flexible CD reencoder
I could actually see C++ slowly going away over the next decade as it is replaced by other languages that fill the same needs but better. C on the other hand is probably going to be around for a long, long time.
Measuring by internet web pages mentioning it? Can you say, "worthless statistic," kids? I write code that controls hardware. You bet it's C++. I write code that's IN the hardware. An interpreted language? Are you out of your damn mind? Do I blog about it? Don't be absurd. Am I generating "web presence" for it? Only on slashdot. Go away useless statistic.
I've been C coding for years, and I have to say, even though I like it, the number of things that I can do more easily with, say, Python, is getting larger.
I suspect that soon all I will use C for is writing shared libraries that I can call from some other language.
I wish people would stop banging on about C's memory problems. C has *no* memory management problem. It has no memory management at all, um, I mean, you just have to be careful when writing your code.
C is fast, seriously fast even. For that reason alone it will always have a place. I shouldn't think there will be many coders who only use C left soon though, because the job market for pure C programmers is pretty small these days.
A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
I consider a proper coder to be anyone who can write a proper flowchart and the pseudo-code/logic for their target application. It has nothing to do with the language they finally use to implement.
That being said, I agree with you otherwise. The first thing I thought of when I read the summary was 'lazy coders' when garbage collection was cited as a driving factor. That's the sad fact; many of the kids being cranked out of schools today can't code their way out of a paper bag without a compiler/interpreter that does most of the dirty work for them.
Yeah I know. Get off my lawn.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
I'm not sure why you feel you need to "track memory" in C++. I did an analysis of all the code I've written a year or so ago, and I found that there is approximately one usage of a pointer in every 5700 lines of code (the way I write it, at least).
We have this great stuff called containers and RAII. And for when you absolutely must, must use a pointer, you have boost::scoped_ptr and boost::shared_ptr. I have not coded a memory leak or buffer overrun in C++ in over six years.
The best way to not leak memory is to never allocate it in the first place. The best way to avoid overflowing raw buffers is to not use raw buffers. Use the containers. When you think you can't, think harder.
those who can code in binary and those who cant code.
OK, kidding aside.
There are those who write code so that a person can do something on a computer. In which case the users are comparatively slow and the high level languages give you a distinct advantage in development.
Then there are those who write code to make the computer do something, in which case the low level languages give you the ability to more effectively optimize how the computer interacts with itself, this is where languages like C, C++ really come into their own.
In the early days of computing it was all about the later, now its much more about the former, but the later will never go away. So the decrease is reasonable and IMHO does not represent a failing of the language, just a shift in the way computers are being used. I will be very surprised if the high level languages ever get widespread acceptance in the areas that require computational efficiency, ala computational physics, protein folding, etc.
-- The morphemes of your disquisition are ascertainable, but they have eschewed an ambit of transpicuous exposition.
GC is available for C++, but IMHO inappropriate. One of the great advantages of C++ is that the construction/destruction mechanism, along with automatic variables, gives you absolute control of the lifetime of every single resource. Whereas a garbage collected language like Java gives you absolutely no control over when (if ever) an object is destructed. I think it is a little wacky to give up this total control of object lifetimes in return for such a puny benefit, a benefit which could easily be achieved through C++ resource management techniques like RAII.
And anyway, garbage collection is irrelevant if you never "new" anything in the first place.
Garbage collection is surely a factor in them losing ground, but I think the main reason is simple: library support.
Java and .NET have huge well-designed frameworks behind them. You can get things done really fast. What does C have? A bunch of separate libraries all with different conventions. C++ is a little better with a more useful standard library and Boost, but it still doesn't have anywhere near the infrastructure Java and .NET have.
I wouldn't say C or C++ is losing ground. They both continue to serve well in the niches they established.
Meanwhile, other segments of the pie are expanding, and few of these new applications are coded in C or C++. Does that mean C and C++ are losing ground?
There is no language out there that serves as a better C than C, or a better C++ than C++. The people who carp about C++ reject the C++ agenda, which is not to achieve supreme enlightenment, but to cope with any ugly reality you throw at it, across any scale of implementation.
For those who wish to gaze toward enlightenment, there is always Java. Enlightenment is on the other side of a thick, protective window, but my isn't the view pretty? I've yet to encounter an "enlightened" language that offers a doorway rather than a window seat. I would be first in line if the hatch ever opened.
The problem with C/C++ has long been that the number of programming projects far exceeds the number of people who have the particular aptitudes that C/C++ demand: those of us who don't need (or wish) to be protected from ourselves (or the guy programming next to us).
It's not economically practical to force programmers who don't have that temperament to begin with to fight a losing battle with self-imposed coding invariants. I'm glad these people have other language choices where they can thrive within the scope of their particular gifts. I don't feel my role is diminished by their successes.
For those of us who have gone to the trouble to cultivate hardcore program correctness skills, none of the supposed problems in the design of C or C++ are progress limiting factors, not within the zone of applications that demand a hardcore attitude toward program correctness.
It's the natural order of things that hardcore niches are soon vacated by those unsuited to thrive there, leaving behind a critical core of people who specialize in deep-down nastiness.
For example, it's not just anyone who maintains a root DNS server. I can say with some assurance that the person who does so did not earn his (or her) grey hairs by worrying about whether the implementation language supported automatic GC.
Let's take a metaphor from the security sector. Ten years ago, a perimeter firewall was considered a good security measure. This measure alone eliminated 99% of TCP/IP based remote exploits.
These days, most exploits are tunneled through http, or maybe I'm behind the times, and the true threat is now regarded to be some protocol tunneled within http.
Then some genius comes along and says "in the security sector, TCP/IP defenses are losing ground". Quoi? Actually, no one is out there dismantling their TCP/IP based perimeter firewall. It's continuing to do the same essential job as ever.
It's only the bandwagon that has picked up and moved camp. Yes, garbage collection and deep packet inspection are now all the rage. So it goes.
Why not go around saying that sexual reproduction is all the rage these days? Would that imply we could eliminate all the organisms that reproduce asexually, and the earth's ecology would continue to function? Hardly.
These new languages are soaking up much of the new code burden because these language are freed from having to cope with the nastiness at the extremes (small and large) that C/C++ have already taken care of.
I would almost say that defines a success criteria for a programming language: if it removes enough nastiness from the application space, that the next language that comes along is free to function on a higher plane of convenience. C/C++ have both earned their stripes. Which of these new languages will achieve as much?
Hi,
Yes, some things need to be done in assembly or C in order to `stay competetive' or even just to remain within the realm of the possible. How much that is depends on your application and your platform.
So, systems programmers, you need not worry, your skills are always going to be needed for something.
But let's be honest here, 80% of the applications you can code entirely in Haskell or Prolog or Python or whatever fancy high-level language you may personally have come to love. And of the remaining 20%, you can usually still code 80% of the application in your favourite language and optimise the core 20% in C. (After profiling. Let me repeat that, AFTER profiling.)
Will it run faster and in less memory if you do it all in C? If you do it properly, sure. But that's not the question to ask. If you work commercially, ask for `what will be most profitable in the long run, while remaining ethical'. If you work free software projects, ask for `what will benefit people the most'.
Don't confuse the above questions with `what will satisfy my C(++) hacker ego the most'. And remember that it's not just about getting the code working and making it fast, it's about making the code robust; and in many cases it's also about making the code readable for whoever will maintain it after you.
Apologies for this rant; feel free to mod it down if you so desire, but you, dear fellow programmers, have had it coming for quite a while, as did I.
FORTRAN, Lisp, and Cobol have all lost ground. BASIC and Pascal used to be the big dogs instead of also-rans, and if Ada ever had any ground in the first place, it lost that.
Even Perl isn't as popular as it used to be, now that other languages have started to fill its niche.
Times change, and it should be unsurprising that the dominant programming languages change along with it. Some day, Java, PHP, Visual Basic, Python, and Ruby will all be obsolescent as well. Thirty years ago, computers were vastly different than they are now. In another thirty years, there will have been another quantum leap (intended) in computing. Why should the languages we program them with remain the same?
I wouldn't be so sure.
It's just slightly higher level. A C compiler outputs assembly code - that's the whole point of a C compiler. Think of C as the worlds greatest macro processor for assembly.
That's why most compilers have some sort of ASM pragma - so you can inject your assembly into the code if you feel the compiler is doing a poor job of it.
That's also why you'll never find a faster language. And that's why it'll never go away.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
That says nothing about those languages. All that says anything about is your job.
I write drivers, so I could make the opposite statement. Doesn't say anything about the relative merits of one language versus another though. All it says is that I'm in an environment where C makes more sense.
In summary: A hammer is best when your problem is a nail, and a screwdriver is best when your problem is a screw.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Shows what I know about PowerShell...
Being a UN*X admin and a reasonably-competent scripter, I tried looking into it and my brain had trouble grasping how this is supposed to be a shell.
From what I can see, Bourne and other UN*X shells are stream-oriented and PS seems object-oriented.
I see LDAP as a flat text-based database with Organizational Units, not as a magical forest with trees, domains and groups.
This is, most likely, because UN*X admins are used to modifying and/or generating configuration files,
whilst Windows admins have spent the last 13 years ticking tickboxes and, lately, dragging objects.
(does knowing win.ini and system.ini make me l33t or simply a dinosaur? I fled the Windows scene when 2003 came out...)
"I was in love with a beautiful blonde once, dear. She drove me to drink. It's the one thing I am indebted to her for."
A musket isn't as useful or respectable when everyone else has M1A2s though.
Popular as in people using it, or popular as in lots of people writing about it?
Personally, I'm not convinced AJAX is that popular on the people-using-it count. It's a very useful technique for a particular niche, but it is only a niche.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Surely it's not really a fair indication just because it's web presence is dropping? I could easily argue that Java is only so "popular" because more people are posting with problems they're having using the language and that C\C++ are only loosing ground because better information on using the language is already out there.
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
In the work I do--scientific calculations with a lot of fast numerics, , python + fortran seems like nirvana, as each overcomes the shortcomings of the other. One could just as well use C except the efficient numeric libs and memory layout give fortran an edge.
This of course is not the match made in heaven for everyone but numerical scientists should look hard.
What's so good?
Utility:
Well there's a strong base of numeric libraries in Python that are fortran array freindly so there's a good base to grow off of.
Second F2PY, which creates python modules out of fortran subs works so well it's almost transparent and painless. Even cooler is that because fortran compiles are ludicrously fast compared to C++, you can generate fortran code in the python compiler at run time and compile it one the fly for creating modules optimized to your problem.
Given you are wrapping in python, the availability of groovy C++ libs is not really very enticing at all given the pain you will pay for having to write the whole program in C++.
Practical:
Fortran as a stand alone language kinda blows for versatility and modern program architectures. But if all you are doing is writing a function then it's a sweet language because it's language syntax is so tight that it's harder to make a syntax error that compiles, and hard to logic errors seem to be less evasive than in C. (e.g. using i++ instead of ++i or doing I=4 instead of i==4 are not possible in fortran's limited syntax).
Thus you write functions and let python deal with all the memory management, human interface, file management, command line arg parsing and all the messy bits that end up being a lot bigger than the function where the program spends all it's time.
Fortran is also very optimization friendly since things like matrix multiplies and out-of-order loops are part of the core language.
This is debatable but I find that fortran seems to have a more logical memory order in 2-d arrays. Namely if you take a sub-array you get elements that are consecutive in memory and thus for most microprocessors will all get pulled into the cache on the same page. Slices of C-arrays have consecutive elements spaced by the row width apart in memory. One can of course find cases where one is preferred over another.
I do however which python had some way of optionally typing variables that was less cumbersome and slow than decorators or explicit run-time type checking. I virtually never write python that takes advantage of introspection or dynamic typing so the ability not to have some protection--optionally and just to debug--by type checking is annoying.
But If I were starting from scratch and did not have a compelling need for all those wonderful fortran numeric libs, I think the optimal choice in the future is going to be
Java+ Groovy.
basically you learn one syntax and get the best of both interpreted and compiled languages. Develop it in groovy then migrate the slow bits to JAVA. import all the great JAVA libs.
And since it's nearly the same syntax it's easy to read.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
If you use the facilities provided by the STL and BOOST (most notably shared_ptr), C++ is not a whole lot different than Java these days. Java went a little too far in my opinion on being nice to the programmers while giving up performance. Modern C++ hits the sweet spot in my opinion.
If only the standards committee could get off its arse and progress as quickly as BOOST does....
I was convinced that in the scientific programming world, people were still into Fortran as it grants a slight increase in speed over C for certain algorithms. Of course, this wouldn't have a broad _web presence_ due to the fact that realtime and mission critical applications aren't posted on the web. I think the limit of the fortran that still exists publicly would be the open source ATLASes and MATLAB clones (ie:matplotlib), as well as, of course, Linux itself.
+5, Truth
I agree with you on Coldfusion, simply because I'm forced to work with it on a daily basis. As a longtime "real" programmer, CF is an insult to my skill and experience, but sadly I need to eat.
.NET. If Borland hadn't gone mental in the mid-90s, .NET would not exist today, instead we'd have Borland's equivalent and people would be praising Delphi, just as they praise C# in today's reality. It would probably run a helluva lot faster too!
Delphi though, slow down! Everyone keeps repeating how Pascal is a teaching language, yet it was my official language for many years. Back in the 90's I was developing commercial games with little more than Borland Pascal 7 and Turbo Assembler. I did the speedy bits in assembler, and the logic in Pascal. My development time was extremely short and my code was very reliable and reusable.
When Delphi happened, well honestly the first few versions stank, but I remember writing all sorts of apps in Delphi 4 (yes, even DirectX games). Delphi today has turned into a schizophrenic marketing clusterfuck thanks to Borland/Inprise/Codegear/TrendyNameOfTheMomentInc, but I think Delphi as language is just right for a large number of situations.
It's right in the sweet spot between useless VB and painful C, plus it compiles crazy fast and performs very respectably, given how easy it is to develop. In fact, its qualities closely resemble those of C#, only Delphi did it over 12 years ago. It's no coincidence, Microsoft hired the creator of Turbo Pascal, Anders Hejlsberg, to create C#, J++ and many key architectural features of
-Billco, Fnarg.com
It really comes down to different tools for different jobs. Having a vast number of tools at your disposal for free is not a bad thing, just get a cursory knowledge of each tool and what it's good for so that when your next project comes up you can make an informed decision on which one(s) to use.
Also, you make it seem like only knowing the C/C++ languages is sufficient to accomplish anything. That's really not true--at a minimum you need to know the STL for C++ related stuff, some GUI library for doing graphics, an XML library for doing XML manipulation, a database library for interacting with the database of your choice, a cross-platform library to write portable code, etc. Even if you're using something that does all of that (such as Qt) you still need to learn about XML, XMLSchema and DTD if you are using those technologies (just as you would for web programming).