Stroustrup on next-gen C++: I didn't want to let go of my baby

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/13/stroustrup_on_c_plus_plus/

by cpeterso • 14 years ago

41 52 14 years ago

theregister.co.uk

happywolf• 14 years ago

I tend to think the new C++ is apt for a new project with no historical burden. We can always use the more modern features. However this may not hold true for existing projects with a number of developers

meaty3• 14 years ago

Except that's not how it works. The realistically high skilled C++ people are far and few between so you end up with a shit crock cludged together out of vaguely bastardised MFC'ish code, knotted with Win32 and ATL and Boost with a load of "features which were too dangerous to use" removed.

C++ has such a bad legacy, it's going to be really hard to shake off the bad old days.

Perhaps in time when the newer generations actually have been using C++11 for a while, but not for at least 5-10 years if you ask me.

rerere• 14 years ago

We could start with a little honesty. Perhaps the C++ zealots could explain to us how the great new features they promoted for so long were actually a crock of shit. Things like auto_ptr, throw specifications, the export keyword and so forth were promoted as the bee's knees. It's funny how they love to criticize C and its "evil arrays and pointers", but never admit their own mistakes. And they've made so many, so many more than C ever did.

wslh2• 14 years ago

Beyond the complexity of C++ I think one of the biggest problems with it is the lack of self sufficient standard libraries. There was always something extra that needs to be done. For example, simple things like converting a string to a number involves more thinking and knowledge (using string streams) that what is really necessary.

Shorel• 14 years ago

Actually, in that case you would use wxWidgets instead of any MFC&Win32.

Or some Qt with its non-standard metacompiler.

But yes, that can be considered bad legacy stuff.

kybernetyk• 14 years ago

We were lucky enough to start a new project ~1 year ago - completely in C++11. We make heavy use of all the new fun C++11 stuff like lambdas, move constructors (yay, no vectors of pointers anymore!) and all that auto/decltype syntactic sugar.

And I must say: It's a whole different programming language and a new level of productivity.

forrestthewoods• 14 years ago

Depending on move constructors scare the bajeezus out of me because I have no way of knowing if it's working properly. It's behavior is also implementation specific. Given the following test you'll get a variety of results depending on your platform.

struct Foo{...} std::vector<Foo> vec; for( int i = 0; i < 10; ++i) { vec.push_back( Foo() ); }

Results: 35 move / 25 copy / 10 move + 15 copy / 25 move.

It all depends on your compiler and STL implementation. Not knowing scares the hell out of me.

shawn-butler5• 14 years ago

At this point assuming your team makeup hasn't changed much, have you been able to generate any intesting metrics to guage the increase in productivity?

Also what compiler did you feel comfortable picking a year ago to base a production development effort on?

betterunix6• 14 years ago

I disagree entirely. I would say that C++ should be treated like COBOL: useful only to maintain legacy code that nobody has the time or money to rewrite in a better language. C++ is a mess, and C++11 has done little to make C++ less of a mess.

pjmlp• 14 years ago

Ah that must be the reason why gcc migrated their codebase to C++!

blub• 14 years ago

The idea of languages adhering to some sort of standard and not being owned by a corporation rings true.

I can see this first hand with Objective-C, where Apple evolves the language as they see fit. The joining of such different paradigms as Smalltalk-style OO and C was fragile in the first place and can barely sustain the new functionality.

Another example is C#. No matter how nice the language becomes, it will always be the MS language for me, and I don't trust MS when it comes to APIs and languages - they shuffle things around for no reason, cancel projects, etc. And then you're screwed.

meaty3• 14 years ago

I think the notable exception to that rule is Go.

Go is imported by Google, not exported by them.

It's also got good funding, a large number of well known core team members (who won't let it die) and a good license which protects the users in the future.

dbaupp• 14 years ago

Could you explain the "imported" comment? (I don't know much about the history of Go, and it looks a lot like Google is exporting it.)

tcbawo• 14 years ago

I agree about Microsoft's heavy-handedness. Interestingly, the C# language up to version 3.0 is ISO standard (SO/IEC 23270:2006).

pretoriusB• 14 years ago

>I can see this first hand with Objective-C, where Apple evolves the language as they see fit. The joining of such different paradigms as Smalltalk-style OO and C was fragile in the first place and can barely sustain the new functionality.

Huh? Cocoa (and the rest of Obj-C libraries Apple does) are just fine, hardly "barely sustained" by the language.

And it wasn't even Apple, the core framework logic is mostly the same as in NeXT era Objective-C (minus some welcomed syntactic sugar additions).

Smalltalk-style OO and C are very well married in Objective-C, and the language has been, historically, a joy to work with. Jusk ask Tim Berners Lee and Carmack.

Even today it gives strengths that other platforms lack, namely the ability to have very dynamic high level abstractions and easily drop to C whenever you want, which for desktop and especially mobile use is very nice: better memory management and no GC pauses, while still having a full blown OO GUI framework.

robot• 14 years ago

what an ugly baby that is...

nicholassmith2• 14 years ago

Stoustrup is right, there's many dark and really dank corners of C++ and people start poking around in them and bringing them into production code and that's just bad for everyone. It's like tigers, tigers are awesome and it's great that our ecosystem has developed to support them, but you don't put a tiger in your house.

I do C++ dev work for a living, I enjoy it. The language can be a nightmare, but as long as you're sensible and frugal with what you're using it's no worse than anything else. The trick is to really, really think about whether a specific feature is worth taking into a more complex direction with some of the edgier C++ functionality, or sticking with more core, basic, understandable code which might trade off performance.

I should probably say I've not done any 'proper' C++ development for a while, mostly we build with Qt and that abstracts a lot of the headaches away into a nice toolkit.

betterunix6• 14 years ago

"as long as you're sensible and frugal with what you're using it's no worse than anything else"

That is part what makes C++ worse: the fact that being a C++ experts primarily means knowing what not to do.

JoeAltmaier• 14 years ago

Oh come on; you have to try to find the dark corners, its not like they seek you out!

nicholassmith2• 14 years ago

Being an expert in any language means knowing what not to do, more than knowing what you should do.

popee• 14 years ago

Whata possessive father :-)

nnq2• 14 years ago

Out of curiosity, if one wanted to "re-learn modern C++" after years of Java, Python, Ruby, where could he start from? (something like a "crash course") Is Stroustrup's "Principles and Practice Using C++" any good for this purpose?

dkarl• 14 years ago

Principles and Practices is a book for people who have not programmed before. Unfortunately, the book you want is the fourth edition of The C++ Programming Language, which will not be available until April: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0321563840

nnq2• 14 years ago

yep, I'll probably order it when it comes out ...though it's definitely not a "crash course" :)

gits1225• 14 years ago

C++ Primer, 5th Edition, by Stanley B. Lippman, Josée LaJoie, Barbara E. Moo: https://www.informit.com/store/c-plus-plus-primer-9780321714... and http://isocpp.org/

shawn-butler5• 14 years ago

Depending on your prior expertise level with c++98, you could pick up the c++11 just by looking at deltas of the standard.

Along those lines, the Microsoft compiler team had a good blog post with links to relevant portions of the standard that I found helpful. [0] All of those "No" not implemented yet is a definite problem. I can also recommend the MSDN series "Welcome Back to C++ (Modern C++)" [1]. And also Microsoft supplies the source code for an app called "hilo" that utilizes c++11, asynchronous techniques and MVVM patterns, but obviously in the context of the microsoft platform! [2]

[0] http://blogs.msdn.com/b/vcblog/archive/2011/09/12/10209291.a...

[1] http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh279654(v=vs.110).a...

[2] http://hilo.codeplex.com/

rplacd• 14 years ago

> “A lot of people look at C++ and want to understand every dark corner. This is what you do if you want to be a compiler writer, but most people should look at what is the easiest way to write a good solution for their problem," said Stroustrup.

Ha! So even Soustrup agrees C++ is inevitably subsetted by its users.

> “I try to focus on things that lead to correct programs fairly easily. I emphasise the use of constructors to establish invariance, to acquire resources, destructors for cleaning up, copy operations, and the new [C++ 11] move semantics that allow you to move an object out of one scope and into another one very cheaply," he added.

Keeping the rest of the quote here - now I'm looking for a more abstract and more inclusive notion about what constructors and destructors do.

Stroustrup on next-gen C++: I didn't want to let go of my baby

Related Stories