Slashdot Mirror
Interview Update With Bjarne Stroustrup On C++0x
An anonymous reader writes "DevX interviewed Bjarne Stroustrup about C++0x, the new C++ standard that is due in 2009. Bjarne Stroustrup has classified the new features into three categories: Concurrency, Libraries and Language. The changes introduced in Concurrency makes C++ more standardized and easy to use on multi-core processors. It is good to see that some of the commonly used libraries are becoming standard (eg: unordered_maps and regex)."
Been there, done that.
Most of the time, the potentially reduced running time of the C++ implementation never comes close to the months saved in development.
And when it does, it's trivial to go in and write the speed-sensitive portions of the program in a faster language.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
hours finding memory leaks? How bad are you at debugging? Plus there are tons of tools to assist with memory leak detection. However, protection is no substitute for abstinence. Learn to write code better. BTW go do some embedded software with C# or Java.
Because performance is important to some people.
...what do people find so difficult about C++? Use the standard libraries, exception handling, and make sure your news all have deletes, and it's no more difficult than any scripting language. I actually prefer it over scripting languages, which have their place, but feel all sloppy and unspecific. It's like the difference between building a house out of 2x4s and building one out of sticks you found laying on the ground.
I'll consider Java and C# as C++ replacements once they get:
These points are serious, especially the first, without real templates, generic programming/metaprogramming at compile-time is not possible. These two are one of C++'s biggest strenghts, though.
To be fair, C# 3.0 is somewhat nice, especially its functional core. Java is a totally uninteresting language with very small expressiveness. Of course, if the job requires it, there is no discussion, but in my spare time, I prefer C++.
This sig does not contain any SCO code.
...and roll on the C++-hatred! Second C++ article in a short time, and again lots of venom and anger. "Months saved in development"? Really? What are you doing, implementing your own OS before you start application development? Here's a newsflash: C++ also has support libraries, just like Java, Perl, Python and Ruby. They may not be part of the language specification (and I still think that's a weird idea to begin with, but I'm old-fashioned that way), but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
Anything you could want for in a modern language is there. And nobody is holding a gun to your head and making you write those scary templates if you don't want to.
I'm just positively amazed that Slashdot, in theory home of programmer geeks anywhere, should have such a violent dislike of C++. Not that there is nothing to criticize about it, but it is still an amazingly powerful, versatile tool that programmers anywhere would do well to learn.
We will see the usual litany of C++ hating here in this thread. The hating will be generally based around misconceptions or problems that are 5 years old.
So to get them out of the way:
If you're leaking memory or spending time managing memory in C++, then you're using C++ wrong. Get a book written in the last 5 years.
If you're worried about compiler compatibility (with the exception of export which isn't much use anyway), get a compiler written in the last 5 years.
If you think that C does some subset of your task better, then write it in the common subset of C and C++ and quit whining. Or, write it in C and link it against your C++ code and quit whining.
If you think that templates simply provide code bloat, then get a compiler newer than 5 years old.
If you think C++ is slower than C, then get a good optimizing compiler (you know one written in the last 5 years) and do a benchmark. You will generally find that templates make C++ faster.
If you think "modern" languages are more expressive, then give "modern" C++ a try (insert comment about recent compilers here).
Sure there are valid complaints about C++, but the majority of them I hear on slashdot are complete bull. The majority of the remaining complaints will be fixed by C++0x.
One remaining problem is the lack of a vast array of standard, business oriented libraries. I don't write business oriented code, and I find the C++ STL one of the best libraries out there since it provides really good support for writing efficient algorithms.
Another problem is the difficulty in parsing C++. Sadly that's never going away.
But if you're going to complain about C++ compared to recent languages here, make sure that you're talking about recent C++ too, and try to make sure the complaints are accurate.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
You do know that you don't have to screw around with any of that in a managed language, right? "Very easily make the different processor needs compatible" my ass--Java/C# do it on their own.
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
C++ is an extremely powerful programming language and that is why I use it every day. But it has one major problem: It is too complicated. As long as you do programming full time you are OK but if too much of your time is spent on the application side of things you quickly get in trouble. This is what people like BS don't seem to get - not everyone can spend 100% of their time studying the language.
If it was as good as it stands, then newer languages such as C# wouldn't take off.
Don't get me wrong, I love C++ and it's my primary programming language, but to say it's perfect as it is, is just silly.
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
No, the "premature optimization" thing applies to all areas. Especially areas where it's never fast enough.
Why? It's simple: resource management.
You have X amount of resources to put into your product. X is always finite. It's kind of tough to measure X, but you can think of it as lines of code, man-years, or even just dollars. The amount of resources you have varies a lot depending on your budget, how much time you have, and the quality of the programmers you have. But the important thing is that X is always limited.
Now you have two approaches:
Paradoxically, I hold that #2 will produce a faster program. This is because the X you spend on making the program faster in #2 will be more effective, because you've already laid the groundwork for it. It's always difficult and time consuming to optimize code that doesn't even run yet. It's much more efficient to optimize code that already works. So the result, even though you spend less X on speed, is a faster program.
Think of it as transporting a lot of material into the wilderness somewhere. If you first spend some of your resources on building a road, you'll get the job done for less time and money than if you just start hauling stuff into the woods immediately.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
Boost has in many eyes really transcended from "just an external library" to an integral part of the C++ platform. It compiles on every major platform, and it is open source.
Boost is moving C++ forward at a rate 10x that of the standards committee. I am not sure why you felt integrating it with your project was difficult- it is header only for the most part and does not require you to use any specific pieces. Shared_ptr's, which are the most useful library of all, do tend to be viral in the sense that you have to use them everywhere, but this is a GOOD thing.
If you are doing C++ without Boost these days, you are really missing the boat.
Generally speaking, I agree with your post. However...
That's a really, really awful way to think about C.
C has a completely different set of best practices and design principals; anyone who puts "C/C++" on a resume I'm reviewing loses points as opposed to listing them separately.
Oh please. Pascal does everything C++ can now.
First off, if you have a problem with using external libraries, then you just won't get anywhere with a C/C++. They are VERY general purpose, and intentionally so, and the whole idea is that implementation specific things are supposed to be provided in libraries, rather than the core language. That said:
1. Boost is actually very easy to integrate for most of its features. A few (small handful) of its components require compilation, but the vast majority of them are template-based and header only. Meaning just include a header file and there you go, you're using boost. No extra compilation/installation required.
2. This kind of thing is GREAT for doing small scripts, but HORRIBLE for doing large complex applications where type safety can be VERY important for avoiding bugs. If all you ever do are small, quick, limited scripts, then you're absolutely right that you should avoid C++, that's certainly not what it was meant for, and not so much the domain of a strongly typed language. For things like the software that runs large financial institutions and whatnot, there's a reason code like that should be avoided at all costs.
3. I have trouble imagining a situation where a real garbage collector would ever be superior to an RAII model with shared smart pointers for stuff allocated on the heap, outside of plugging up a leaking legacy app. Maybe for very simple programs, but once you get non-trivial destructors (for example, with objects that lock system resources), then you start having to do manual memory management in your GC environment anyway, and end up with a horribly ugly conglomeration of "mixed metaphors" as it were. Smart pointers really give you the best of both worlds: deterministic destruction, without having to worry about manually releasing anything. It's just a matter of getting used to declaring a smart pointer wherever you would have a "type *name" instead. So yes, I'd argue they ARE a substitute for garbage collection in almost any situation.
4. Sorry to be blunt, but you should probably RTFA on this one. The problem is solved through "concepts," which is the part of the new specification which deals with this specifically. It's essentially a C++ implementation of the "design by contract" metaphor.
5. In this case "can be" equates to "do whatever you like and it'll be portable on all major general purpose computers, and who uses Ruby or Python on embedded platforms anyway?" If you are able to compile with GCC, which is the case for pretty much every computer/OS combination in existence, then you can count on it being pretty damn portable. If you are programming for something like an ATM or a set-top box, then you probably aren't going to be using a high level scripting language anyway.
6. Yeah, it can get ugly. Thankfully this will be largely fixed with the "auto" keyword in C++0x.
It is the discussion. Judging c++ with boost excluded is like judging perl with CPAN excluded. Who cares whether it's "part of the language" or not? Everyone who uses the language seriously uses them, and they're critical to understanding how the language is used effectively.
If you make language even an idiot can use, idiots will be using it. Like with VB.
Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers