Why I No Longer Like or Use C++

http://prophipsi.blogspot.com/2008/03/why-i-no-longer-like-or-use-c.html

by muriithi • 18 years ago

22 23 18 years ago

prophipsi.blogspot.com

ghiotion• 18 years ago

I used VC++ in my first job, using Microsoft's ATL to extend the functionality of an ActiveX based Web app from Mercury Interactive (TestDirector, for those that are interested). It was utterly horrible, but I wasn't aware of it at the time.

I basically agree with the author of the post. I've never understood the use of virtual and template classes. However, I like what Anonymous says in the comments:

>Here's the secret to good use of C++: Never use STL. Never use any template libraries. Furthermore, never use templates.

>Pretend that it's C, with some nifty object-oriented features and operator overloading. Nothing more.

wheels2• 18 years ago

STL does blow. Templates are fine if used sparingly (i.e. non-STL container classes). Virtuals shouldn't be optional (a la Java). I'd add to the list that references in C++ are silliness (const reference usage should be a detail handled by the compiler automatically, non-const references just lead to ambiguous APIs).

The problem really seems to be that there are still some niches where you need something with relatively fine grained control and raw horsepower of C++, but there's not been anything to come along to fill that niche.

A simplified C++ standard would be a step in the right direction. Unfortunately it seems that the standard is moving in the opposite direction.

For what it's worth, I find programming with Qt pretty close to "C++ as it should be".

scott_s7• 18 years ago

I make extensive use of the STL, so I'm curious to hear why you don't like it.

scott_s7• 18 years ago

C++ is a systems programming language first, and an application programming language second. There was a time when there was little difference between the two areas.

System resources are not as precious as they used to be, so the distinction has become more apparent. Hence, people who use C++ for non-systems programming encounter friction when performance goals are at odds with productivity goals. They then move to languages which take the opposite approach and sacrifice performance for productivity.

I use and like using C++. Yet I don't see any reason to argue when he says C++ is not for him any longer - he's probably right. I think the domain where C++ is appropriate has shrunk and continue to do so, and that's fine.

(For the record, rvalue references are a means to eliminate copying objects. This is, indeed, a performance optimization that most people don't care about.)

comatose_kid2• 18 years ago

Do you have any examples where C++ has been used as a systems programming language? I thought C held that role.

mellampudi• 18 years ago

Symbian os is coded in c++

elq• 18 years ago

oddly enough, a good chunk of OS/400 was written in C++ - http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=226239.226253&coll...

tubby• 18 years ago

BeOS was C++

scott_s7• 18 years ago

Much of the examples on Stroustrup's page qualify as systems code: http://www.research.att.com/~bs/applications.html.

A high profile, recent example is Google's MapReduce: http://labs.google.com/papers/mapreduce.html.

aswanson• 18 years ago

I use C++ for image processing. Would I like to use Ruby? Of course. Do I know that if I do so I cannot process 30 frames a second? Yes. You take what liberties the problem at hand extends to you and save the dogma for the preisthood.

huhtenberg4• 18 years ago

First comment on the article's own page pretty much nails it. C++ is flexible enough to be used as beefed up C - templates instead of macros, abstract classes and 'this' instead of callbacks and their arguments, operator overloading to produce more compact the code, etc. Noone is forced to use multiple inheritance, virtual base classes, template specialization and other ++ wonders.

The guy also claims that "every single aspect of C++ being designed around higher performance instead of my productivity". This is false. The fact that it allows writing high-performance code does not mean it was one of the primary design goals. It simply was not, this aspect of the language was inherited from C .. which is one of the languages the author declares to be "going back" to. Kind of ironic if you think about it.

http://www.dmk.com/c++/stroustrup_1986_10.html

scott_s7• 18 years ago

Err, if you read Stroustrup's Design & Evolution of C++, performance clearly was one of the primary design goals. Goals 2 and 3 in the statement you linked to spell that out. If a feature could not be implemented without effecting the efficiency of programs that did not use it, the feature was rejected. One of the points that Stroustrup stresses in D&E is that he wanted no languages below C++.

There are many features that do have a runtime or space cost, but you only pay for it if you use it. And I think that in many cases, what you end up implementing yourself would pay the same performance costs, if not more.

huhtenberg4• 18 years ago

You didn't quite follow what I said or I phrased it badly. C++ performance requirements are inherited from "be like C" requirement. So when the guy says that he's going back to C, because C++ is "all about performance and not usability", it just does not make any sense.

Why I No Longer Like or Use C++

Related Stories