Slashdot Mirror
Bjarne Stroustrup Reflects On 25 Years of C++
eldavojohn writes "Today roughly marks C++'s first release 25 years ago when about six years of Bjarne Stroustrop's life came to fruition in the now pervasive replacement language for C. It achieved ISO standardization in 1998 and its creator regularly receives accolades. Wired's short interview contains some nice anecdotes including 'If I had thought of it and had some marketing sense every computer and just about any gadget would have had a little 'C++ Inside' sticker on it' and 'I'll just note that I consider the idea of one language, one programming tool, as the one and only best tool for everyone and for every problem infantile. If someone claims to have the perfect language he is either a fool or a salesman or both.' There's some surprising revelations in here, too, as his portable computer runs Windows."
C++ is to C as Lung Cancer is to Lung.
Truer words have never been spoken.
No, no. You're thinking of C#!
And if anyone thinks C++ is the perfect language they're an idiot.
Only 25 years? When I was in college, we learned C. No "plus plus", no "objective", no "sharp"... just "C".
Aye, as a matter of fact, I am feeling than a wee bit like Scotty in the TNG episode "Relics".
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
I grew up with C and various other languages (I actually learned Z80 assembler after BASIC but before anything else) and I was forced to do Java for university despite the fact that I never attended a single "Programming in Java" lecture for two years and just downloaded the coursework and submitted it online the same day.
I can't stand C++, it's all but unreadable to me. I'm not saying that C is always readable but C++ makes it much easier to create a mess and jumping into any large C++ project is more an exercise in reading than doing (sometimes that can be a good thing, sometimes that just gets in the way of what should just be a simple fix). And in the end it's just a clever macro / preprocessor trick over C99 to turn various "objects" into sets of function pointers that get called at creation / destruction. I honestly find C++'s syntax quite hideous, and I always thought that Java did a slightly better job at it. The trouble with Java is, unfortunately, far too much verbosity for some very simple things.
I wouldn't necessarily recommend C to a beginner either but if you're intent on starting down the C++ line, you do actually have to learn 99.9% of C before you ever really understand anything "C++" in a given program. Thus it's a nice *extension* to a language but I don't like it being classed as a language in itself. It is "C with classes", after all.
It very much depends where you start, I suppose, but I'm loathe to recommend anyone to start with either C or C++ until they know they want to program and will enjoy doing it.
What really killed C++ for me was when a student created a situation like this:
The fact that such a thing can compile is a glaring error. A function that declares a return type should have a return statement in it, and that should be beyond question. In C, failing to actually return will cause you to have corrupt data; in C++, it can cause a crash, when a temporary object that was never created is destroyed (and happens to have a virtual destructor, which is common).
It is true, there is no on right language, but on the flip side, there certainly are languages that should be avoided if possible, and I would say that C++ is one of them. I understand that there is a lot of legacy code and that using C++ is often unavoidable, and I have found myself in that situation, but if I were starting a new project with a fresh codebase, C++ would be pretty far down the list of languages that I would consider.
Palm trees and 8
I've been writing C++ for 20 of those years and produced an awful lot of performance critical systems code in that time. To this day I find it the most liberating language, whatever is in your mind, you can express it, without the language compromising your intent. I can't see myself moving on until D becomes mainstream, and that may not be before I retire in ten years. I check out all the pretenders as they come and go, nothing else comes close.
Sometimes, it is more important to have the right problem than the best solution.
This is certainly true in more ways than he intended. C++ is as awful as it is useful: Extremely. I will remember this quote next time I have to make an implementation recommendation: "C++ is the right problem for this job." Fucking terrible syntax, loaded with gotchas, requires inordinate amount of expertise to avoid subtle errors--and utterly indispensable when a high-performance general purpose programming language is needed.
C++ FQA (frequently questioned answers)
(Defective C++ is a summary)
'There are only two things wrong with C++: The initial concept and the implementation' - and other quotes
Why C++ sucks
And, previsibly: http://cplusplussucks.com/
Doom was written in C, not C++.
+0 Meh
C++ is popular for the same reason Windows is popular (and in fact, Windows' popularity probably fuels a lot of the popularity of C++): it is widely deployed, people know it, and there is a lot of legacy code that depends on it. Popularity does not make a language good, and I think we have enough examples: COBOL, FORTRAN, C++, etc. C++ has a number of glaring omissions from the standard, and worse yet, things in the standard that are now idiomatically avoided (see Effective C++ and Effective STL if you are interested -- auto_ptr certainly comes to mind). There are some really great languages out there, which just don't have the same non-technical advantages that C++ enjoys, and therefore never became popular among mainstream programmers.
Palm trees and 8
std::string somefunction(){}
The fact that such a thing can compile is a glaring error.
Here's something interesting: Visual Studio wouldn't compile it for me (error C4716, complains about no return value, as you had expected), but it compiled on my FreeBSD box without any complaints. Perhaps this is more of a compiler problem than a C++ problem.
I can't stand C++, it's all but unreadable to me.
That's because just about every C++ coder wants to be the guru (and maybe find the error that gets the $2 check from Bjarne - I actually saw one and the guy who got it framed it!) so, what do they do? Ever frick'in chance they get, they have to use some esoteric feature of the language in their development regardless if it's appropriate - I've done it too. For example, how many of you fellow C++ guys made a template class even though the class would only deal with one data type for ever and ever and ever? Or overloaded an operator just for the sake of overloading it - operator overloading back in my day was the most over used and abused feature in C++.
When I got over the guru thing, I always tried to keep my code well documented and used features sparingly.
For the record, templates can be awesome such as when using the STL - that saved so much grunt work!
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
Does Bjarne Stroustrop think of women as objects?
"Trademarks are the heraldry of the new feudalism."
C++ is about freedom, features and performace. That is what makes it special and what matters in producion environments.
Objective, generic, functional -- its all there and accompained with the best preprocessor, macros and code generators by leading Intel, Microsoft, AMD and even Apple C++ compilers, but again the most important thing is that nothing is really forced upon you. No "automatic memory manager" or other "nany" and "dumb things down" features that create artificial limits, slow execution, unpredictable behavious and most importantly do not restricts you to somebody's elses narrow minded coding practices.
C++ is successful for one big reason: it provides most of the advantages of C with the conveniences of an object-oriented language. Performance is excellent (close to C, which with a good compiler is close to hand-written assembly in most cases) and there's enough capability that you can write just about anything in it, including things that you would never consider writing in manged languages (like device drivers or the VM for those managed languages).
The problem is that the developers of C++ have trouble saying "no". There are a bunch of C++ features that aren't really necessary, but that exist either out of legacy or because someone thought it would be a good idea.
Look at Google's C++ style guide: http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/cppguide.xml#Inheritance
Like most users of C++, Google uses a severely restricted subset of the language. The thing is, most of what Google has left out is quite frankly unnecessary for 99.9% of C++ users. But we're all stuck with it anyway.
Once you get past some of the C-legacy anachronisms and restrict C++ to a small subset of its functionality, it's actually a nice language. The problem is that we can't take things out at this point.
If you're new to programming, start with line-number Basic. When you start inventing weird workarounds for the weaknesses of that language - namely, the lack of stack - graduate to C and the world of Block Programming. When that starts seeming small to you, graduate to C++/Java.
The thing is, each and every programming paradigm has been invented to solve problems. You can't really understand it if you don't understand the problem(s) it was invented to solve, and those problems are really only apparent once you push the language to its limits and try make up your own ways to escape them.
And hey, who knows, maybe you'll invent something better.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
What you are saying is not correct. The C++ standard says:
"6.6.3 The return statement
[...]
A return statement without an expression can be used only in functions that do not return a value, that is, a function with the return type void, a constructor (12.1), or a destructor (12.4).
[...]
Flowing off the end of a function is equivalent to a return with no value; this results in undefined behavior in a value-returning function."
It is perfectly legal for a compiler to issue a warning for this or even an error. I consider a compiler refusing to compile it a superior compiler.
"Give me six lines of C++ code written by the most competent programmer, and I will find enough in there to hang him."
I think the thing that puts a lot of people off ObjectiveC when they come across it the first time is unfamiliar syntax for calling a method. Ironically this is one of it's greatest strengths! In objectiveC function polymophism is not determined a 'signature' created by the argument "types" (which is an idiotic way to do it since it's ambiguous), but rather by the argument labels. That is, the objectiveC method labels every argument with a variable name, not it's type. For example consider the cosine() function. ObjectiveC lets you effectively says Cosine(Radians=3.14159) and Cosine(Degrees=180.0) and have those be polymorphic even though both arguments are floats. In C++ if you want to do that you'd have to create a different typedef for every argument. yuck.
Moreover, ObjectiveC does not actually determine which method gets called at compile time. it can do it at load time with late binding (like Java) or it can do it at runtime! this is because the object that get's the message can introspect the calling args and decide how to respond to it. You get all these Java-like advantages but run a C-like speed. Nifty.
This is not to say that ObjectiveC is untyped like python keyword args, but rather that you have the benefit of typing and labeling due to it's more versatile syntax. It's just looks funny the first time you see it.
At this point someone always says you can do that in C++ to and then produces some archane C++ way of doing that. Yes, well you can do that in BrainFuck too since it's turing complete as well. What matters is how simple you can make that. The beauty of ObjectiveC is that it is a very very thin layer on C that gets you all the things you really wanted in an object oriented language without the crap that makes it hard to use and debug.
I won't bother speculating why C++ became dominant (any more than I feel like rehashing VHS vs BetaMax), but I will say this: any language that needs a series of books explaining how NOT to use the language (lest you create obscure bugs) is an inherently flawed language.
With assembly there's an excuse - you have no boundaries (no pun intended). You realize you're operating on bare metal, or at least one step above it. But with C++ you have this belief that you have the illusion of power and safety, but the reality is you have a jumble of constructs and tools that can easily be used wrong (and often are by novices and intermediate developers).
I daresay you could teach an intermediate coder how to do OO in straight C and get better results than if they were trying to use C++.
And yeah, I'm in the camp of "Obj-C is better than C++". But then, I like Ruby, Lisp, Clojure, and Scala too. C++ really needs to die. Any further energy spent on C++ needs instead to be put into JVM and other abstraction technologies.
.sigs are for post^Hers.
...the slowest sorting algorithm
Bubble sort's not even close. The shuffle sort beats it hands down:
do {
random_shuffle(container);
} while (!sorted(container));
The initial shuffle helps avoid good performance even when the data is pre-sorted. :)
What really killed C++ for me was when a student created a situation like this:
std::string somefunction(){}
After all that discussion about whether it really is a problem with the language specification, I have to say that this example is the lamest reason to damn an entire programming language. It is like damning staplers because they shoot staples into your face when you hold it backwards. Here's a tip: don't do that.
That's exactly how I learned, and probably a lot of the pro coders. I started with GW-Basic, turbo pascal, visual basic, then hit a wall. Why won't my crc-32 work quickly? Use a .dll in C. So I learned C, and had some polymorphic class type stuff happening.
Then I decided to learn C++. Bloat I thought, but I basically used C syntax with a few C++ things like new. Then I had a reason to use polymorphism, and I have to say it made the code clean. I learned a lot by looking at various open source code bits, and there is a big difference between well-organized code and poorly organized. Without an intelligent IDE like MSVS 2005, where you can say "find definition" or "find references", C++ can be so poorly laid out that it's incomprehensible. But the compiler can figure it out.
At the same time I learned C++, I also regressed into x86 assembly and some 6502 as well. Now, when I debug poor C# or SQL performance, people are amazed that I can figure out where the bottlenecks are without even profiling or running the app. Knowing the language helps, but knowing what the computer has to do under the hood is priceless. You don't know the exact algorithm, but you know enough. When you see something like SqlCommandBuilder that magically knows the insert or update or delete commands for each table, you have to be able to know not to use it if you need performance. IF that's not obvious then you should really go back to the basics and unlearn.
Like when Java came out and everyone called it slow and bloated. Sure it was on some machines, but a lot of it was inefficient string concatenation. Using strings and putting them together instead of using StringBuilder or whatever it's called. Each append required allocation, copy, copy, and a free or two. The language could have helped clarify the intended usage, and examples could have been better, but lots of people don't learn the right way.
I see way too many posts on forums when I'm searching for information on poorly documented language features that indicate people don't read a single book or have any formal study of the language. They just start copying things they see, and re-use it because it worked last time. And it's even worse now, there are snippets everywhere on how to do things and no explanation on why, or what not to do. If I ever get to be a hiring interviewer, I'm going to have some very basic questions, not a programming exercise. Things like give me an example where a struct would be a better choice and where a class would be better. And for advanced positions, how to write a polymorphic class in C. Top-tier would have to modify the behavior of a program, without having the source code. Replacing me would require doing it without altering the binary.
In short, learn how the damned thing works and any language will be decent. More importantly, you can decide which one is most appropriate.
Right. Because, by the divine power of Saint Jobs, Objective-C is magically able to do late binding and introspection for free.
Back in the real world, the speed difference between Objective-C and Java is pretty negligible.
Why on earth would you want them to be? They aren't the same type of data. If you add 45 degrees to pi radians, the answer should not be approximately 48.142.
Except C++ is not slower than C... It's actually equally fast, and can give a lot of performance optimizations with a fraction of the code needed to do the same on C.
It's even better than that. There's extra type checking and tighter rules on aliasing in C++ (unless you turn them off), so it can actually generate faster code. If you trivially convert a C program to the slightly less relaxed rules of C++, you should expect at least the same performance (if not, file a bug with your compiler provider), and often better.
I agree with the sentiment that anyone who thinks C++ is slower then C understands neither. It perfectly demonstrates their lack of understanding.
Unfortunately, although Linus Torvalds is an excellent leader of technology development, he sometimes exhibits unsophisticated social behavior.
In the linked message from Linus, *YOU* are full of bullshit, he gives good reasons why he doesn't like C++, but he does not fully analyze the entire situation.
For example, he says "C++ leads to really really bad design choices". That's true in many cases, but C++ programming could be limited to the features that work well. Many of the problems with C++ are caused by programmers using features that they don't fully understand, only so they can get some experience using them. Often, it seems, programmers just want to experiment, and don't care about the long-term end result of what they are coding.
Another problem with C++ is that, while Bjarne Stroustrop was a good leader when C++ was introduced, he has basically exercised too little power in the last 20 years in making sure the C++ language and libraries developed rapidly enough, and in the correct direction.
Still, as bad as the situation is with C++, what is better? Java and C# are easily decompiled; both suffer from ugly politics. C++ is better than C in that it helps programmers control the scope of variables, for example.
When Linus Torvalds says "*YOU* are full of bullshit", he is acting out his anger, he is not acting like a leader. He is not helping make the situation better.
Unfortunately, the people on whom we rely to be our leaders are not always good leaders. We can, however, be thankful for everything positive they have done for us.