Slashdot Mirror
Bjarne Stroustrup Reveals All On C++
An anonymous reader writes "Bjarne Stroustrup, the creative force behind one of the most widely used and successful programming languages — C++ — is featured in an in-depth 8-page interview where he reveals everything programmers and software engineers should know about C++; its history, what it was intended to do, where it is at now, and of course what all good code-writers should think about when using the language he created."
Print Version of the same article http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;408408016;fp;16;fpid;1;pf;1
It's always cool to see this kind of interview. It's even cooler when you can read it all on one page rather than 8.
I suggest that anyone who uses C++ or is interested in the history of programming read this. Some of it is a bit banal, like how they chose the name, but some of it is really intersting. RTFA for once, you lazy clods!
in an 8 page interview? I feel like a sucker for buying the 900 page book
More music, fewer hits
On the 1st of January, 1998, Bjarne Stroustrup gave an interview to the IEEE's Computer magazine.
Naturally, the editors thought he would be giving a retrospective view of seven years of object-oriented design, using the language he created.
By the end of the interview, the interviewer got more than he had bargained for and, subsequently, the editor decided to suppress its contents, for the good of the industry, but, as with many of these things, there was a leak.
Here is a complete transcript of what was was said,unedited, and unrehearsed, so it isn't as neat as planned interviews.
You will find it interesting...
Interviewer: Well, it's been a few years since you changed the world of software design, how does it feel, looking back?
Stroustrup: Actually, I was thinking about those days, just before you arrived. Do you remember? Everyone was writing 'C' and, the trouble was, they were pretty damn good at it. Universities got pretty good at teaching it, too. They were turning out competent - I stress the word 'competent' - graduates at a phenomenal rate. That's what caused the problem.
Interviewer: problem?
Stroustrup: Yes, problem. Remember when everyone wrote Cobol?
Interviewer: Of course, I did too
Stroustrup: Well, in the beginning, these guys were like demi-gods. Their salaries were high, and they were treated like royalty.
Interviewer: Those were the days, eh?
Stroustrup: Right. So what happened? IBM got sick of it, and invested millions in training programmers, till they were a dime a dozen.
Interviewer: That's why I got out. Salaries dropped within a year, to the point where being a journalist actually paid better.
Stroustrup: Exactly. Well, the same happened with 'C' programmers.
Interviewer: I see, but what's the point?
Stroustrup: Well, one day, when I was sitting in my office, I thought of this little scheme, which would redress the balance a little. I thought 'I wonder what would happen, if there were a language so complicated, so difficult to learn, that nobody would ever be able to swamp the market with programmers? Actually, I got some of the ideas from X10, you know, X windows. That was such a bitch of a graphics system, that it only just ran on those Sun 3/60 things. They had all the ingredients for what I wanted. A really ridiculously complex syntax, obscure functions, and pseudo-OO structure. Even now, nobody writes raw X-windows code. Motif is the only way to go if you want to retain your sanity.
[NJW Comment: That explains everything. Most of my thesis work was in raw X-windows. :)]
Interviewer: You're kidding...?
Stroustrup: Not a bit of it. In fact, there was another problem. Unix was written in 'C', which meant that any 'C' programmer could very easily become a systems programmer. Remember what a mainframe systems programmer used to earn?
Interviewer: You bet I do, that's what I used to do.
Stroustrup: OK, so this new language had to divorce itself from Unix, by hiding all the system calls that bound the two together so nicely. This would enable guys who only knew about DOS to earn a decent living too.
Interviewer: I don't believe you said that...
Stroustrup: Well, it's been long enough, now, and I believe most people have figured out for themselves that C++ is a waste of time but, I must say, it's taken them a lot longer than I thought it would.
Interviewer: So how exactly did you do it?
Stroustrup: It was only supposed to be a joke, I never thought people would take the book seriously. Anyone with half a brain can see that object-oriented programming is counter-intuitive, illogical and inefficient.
Interviewer: What?
Stroustrup: And as for 're-useable code' - when did you ever hear of a company re-using its code?
Interviewer: Well, never, actually, but...
Stroustrup: There you are then. Mind you, a few tried, in the early days. There was this Oregon company - Mentor Graphics, I think they were called - re
It shouldn't be that surprising. The new operator should have given it away. After all, in C++ you can create objects (children) that consume resources and don't clean up their garbage. The secret to how it works is that C is a man.
I'm afraid that web site is one of those things that gets way too much attention in some on-line communities because of its controversial nature.
The reason the two sides are far from equally partisan is that Stroustrup freely admits there is another side to the debate and that C++ has its flaws, and he is making efforts to improve the situation. The FQA, on the other hand, just makes blanket statements like "For example, the lack of garbage collection makes C++ exceptions and operator overloading inherently defective", which simply isn't true (and neither are many of the statements made in the FQA under those particular headings).
If you read the comments the guy who wrote the FQA makes on forums like reddit, as well as throughout the FQA itself, it's pretty obvious that unlike Stroustrup, he has little interest in any balanced discussion on the subject. He's just out to prove the other side wrong — where "wrong" often means "not agreeing with him" — and perhaps, the cynic in me suspects, to make a reputation for himself in the process.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Most of your complaints seem aimed at C and not C++. Let's see:
* No standardized pragmas
You want standardized *compiler extensions*?They standardized the extension mechanism. That sounds good for a start, but I don't see how you could go farther.
* Macros after-thought and not type safe C compatibility, basically deprecated now as they also affect everything, including members, variables, anything that gets #included, etc. * No 24, and 32 bit (unicode) chars wchar exists, toghether with I/O stuff, though I'm not sure about the encoding type. You can even declare streams and strings for any character type you build. * Still has float / double crap, instead of being properly deprecated and f32, f64, f80 used instead* Still has short / long crap, instead of being properly deprecated, and i8, i16, i32, i64, i128, u8, etc... C compatibility. I believe they are inheriting the new types from C99 too.
Also, short/int/long give you the sizes optimized for the specific processor, so you can use that if that's what you want. You can't really deprecate them because of that * No distinction between typedefs and aliases What on earth is an alias? Are you talking about C's struct namespace? (one of the few things that C++ doesn't inherit) * Inconsistent left-to-right declarations Inconsistent in what sense? * Compilers still limited to ASCII source C++ has included trigraphs for over ten years now, which allow an editor to insert any unicode character and still store everything in ASCII for compatibility. Compilers don't even need to support unicode for things to just work. The editor just has to interpret the trigraphs and paint them on screen as the appropriate character.
I've never used them though.
* No binary constant prefix (even octal has one?!) I've never met anyone who actually worked in binary. Hex is close enough and less error-prone. Octal probably got included for a) C compatibility and b) People did use to work in octal (see file access permissions) * No standard way to assign NaN, +Inf, -Inf to floating point constants at compile time Would you like a quite or signaling NaN?For double:
#include <limits>
const double inf = std::numeric_limits<double>::infinity ();
const double minf = -std::numeric_limits<double>::infinity ();
const double nan = -std::numeric_limits<double>::signaling_NaN();
See more here for example.
There are has_infinity() and related functions to check for a type's capabilities (say, in a template)
Well, there's no doubt in my mind that C++ is a language design tour de force. The question is whether its design objectives are the right ones.
They were probably the right objectives for the place (Bell Labs) and time (1979) it was conceived.
At the time, computers were inconceivably slow by today's standards. I worked at a small developer that had a very nice AT&T 3B2-400, which had a WE32000 microprocessor, which probably ran at about 10-15MHz; a half dozen programmers shared it.
As for the place, well, it was crawling with C programmers and C libraries, doing rather complex and important systems programming. Compatibility with C and proven C libraries would have been a huge thing.
So, an efficient, object oriented version of C was probably exactly what was needed.
I think that if there was any fault, it was the attempt to meet the goals of efficiency and compatibility with a language that implemented everything that (at the time was thought to be) necessary for programming in an object oriented style. Multiple inheritance carries too much baggage when all you want to do is to guarantee objects have a certain interface. Likewise, I think operator overloading is another example of trying to do too much. Yes, it makes programmer classes "first class citizens", but it really has no demonstrable practical benefit in my opinion. In situations where you need a special purpose language, it's probably better just to create one.
Still, that's hindsight. If you really understand all the things Stroustrup was trying to do, C++ is quite awe inspiring.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.