Slashdot Log In
Interview Update With Bjarne Stroustrup On C++0x
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Thu Aug 21, 2008 10:59 AM
from the name-spelling-indicates-language-complexity dept.
from the name-spelling-indicates-language-complexity dept.
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)."
Related Stories
[+]
Developers: Bjarne Stroustrup Reveals All On C++ 371 comments
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."
Submission: Interview update with Bjarne Stroustrup on C++0x by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Nice name, chief. (Score:5, Funny)
I saw the headline and thought I was seeing some 1337 form of "cox."
huhuhuuhuhuh he said "form."
Truer words have never been spoken. (Score:5, Funny)
C++ is to C as Lung Cancer is to Lung
Parent
Re:Truer words have never been spoken. (Score:4, Informative)
Not sure how long ago I first heard that, and it's still as true today as it was back in '95. I think I first heard it from Greg Anderson, of Anderson Financial Systems (one of the old-time NeXT development shops.)
-jcr
Parent
Re:C#++? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because performance is important to some people.
Parent
Re:C#++? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:C#++? (Score:4, Insightful)
"MBA's will not need programmers anymore, so we'll be able to code OSS full time!"
You realize that is what they said when they introduced COBOL, right?
Parent
Re:C#++? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:C#++? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Objective C and C++ (Score:4, Interesting)
If anyone has used both Objective-C and current C++, can anyone tell me whether the new specification is a clear improvement on either if these?
I can. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Objective C and C++ (Score:5, Interesting)
No, not really.
In fact C++ is barely managing to hold its own any more against C# and Java.
It's not that C++ isn't good, its just that its harder to do things in it then it is to do those same things in either C# or Java. Harder to do means more expensive, and businesses all over are having to tighten their purse strings.
I keep finding that for fast number crunching apps, C beats C++, and for less intensive work its usually easier to use Java or C#, or indeed python, then it is to use C++.
Also, its certainly true to say that in the UK C++ is not anywhere near as useful in terms of getting yourself a job as it used to be.
Parent
Re:Objective C and C++ (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing else in your post either supports, or even directly addresses this assertion.
This is the same bullshit that's trotted out there every time this topic comes up, and it's no more true now than it ever was, which is not at all. If you do a little looking around, you'll find very elegant libraries that support every single feature you'll see in ANY other imperative language, and MANY declarative language features to boot. If you're against code reuse and third party libraries on some sort of general principle, then you're kinda missing the whole point of C++.
I'll be blunt, maybe an ass, maybe a troll, but having used all three of those languages extensively, I can say with almost absolute certainty that the only reason you should be having so much more trouble doing things in C++ (ESPECIALLY as compared to those two languages) is that you're either a very poor C++ programmer or have a pathological aversion to third party libraries.
Another thing that's been very much in the vogue to say lately, but I just haven't seen any meaningful evidence for. I think Bjarne covered this topic fairly even-handedly in TFA, and if he's to be believed then C++ usage is not suffering like popular belief seems to indicate. The crux of it being that web scripting was never a strong domain of C++ in the first place, and in actual applications programming C++ is still the leader of the pack.
Parent
Re:Objective C and C++ (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Objective C and C++ (Score:5, Informative)
Objective-C is essentially unrelated to C++ in every way. C++0x does not change this fact at all. Comparing the two makes just slightly more sense than comparing C++ and Prolog.
Parent
Re:Objective C and C++ (Score:4, Funny)
If you're writing C++, the spec is an improvement. If you're writing Objective-C, you probably don't care because you've already got a great language.
Also, you'll gnash your teeth because god knows how long it will take for apple to provide a compiler toolchain ( gcc? llvm? clang? ) which supports the new features.
Parent
On of the features: (Score:5, Funny)
"control of alignment"
I'd like chaotic good please
Re:On of the features: (Score:5, Funny)
I hate to be the one to break the news, but C++ isn't the only thing that's been revised recently...
Parent
LOL C++0x0Rz (Score:5, Funny)
Re:LOL C++0x0Rz (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Early interview still more interesting (Score:4, Funny)
Just want to remind everybody (Score:5, Informative)
http://yosefk.com/c++fqa/ [yosefk.com] - this site says it all.
And it's also being argumentative and verbose at that, unlike your routine 'C++ sucks' rant.
Time for the C++ haters to post... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
C++ has one major problem (Score:5, Insightful)
auto rocks (Score:5, Interesting)
The new "auto" declarations really fix one of the biggest gripes with C++. Everybody is dead tired of doing
std::map::iterator it = m.begin()
Now you can just do:
auto ip = m.begin()
It takes much of the pain away from static typing...
Re:Interesting suffix (Score:4, Informative)
Yes. It's already been done once, aka C99. This isn't the thing that will replace C++, it's the next revision of the language, with multithreading support etc. Once C++ has worked out the hard stuff, C will have it's own next revision based on that.
Once everything's finished, it should be finalized as C++09. It may carry on another year, in which case you might call it "C++0xa" ;)
Parent
Re:It hurts you to learn C++ is still being used. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
I just don't get it.... (Score:5, Insightful)
...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.
Parent
Re:I just don't get it.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, here's what I personally dislike about C++. You don't have to agree with them, but this is how I feel and I think it's how many other people do as well. Certainly when talking to people who prefer other languages over C++, they have expressed similar sentiments.
The really big issues for me are the flexibility and the lack of libraries. The rest is less important. But with C++ it's like building a house out of 2x4s that you're not allowed to cut to length, whereas with moer modern languages it's more like building a house out of prefabricated rooms, with a ready supply of 2x4s and tools to shape them as you need if the prefabbed rooms don't fit your needs.
Please note that this is just my opinion, and you asked for it. Feel free to disagree, but please don't flame.
Parent
Re:Some counterpoints. (Score:5, Interesting)
Counter-counterpoints:
d = {"name":"Bob", "age":42}
print "Name is %s and age is %d" % (d["name"], d["age"])
Keep in mind that this is a complete python program, no further code is required.
Parent
Re:Some counterpoints. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Some counterpoints. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Some counterpoints. (Score:5, Interesting)
It doesn't solve anything that *couldn't* be solved before, but that's not the point, as anything can be solved given enough time and effort.
But out of the box, without even any compilation needed(!) you can get smart pointer implementations, timers, asynchronous I/O, a multithreading toolbox, conversion libraries, containers, memory pools, and tons more (some would say so much more that its bloated) with the added peace of mind knowing that tons of people out there are using them as well and they are thoroughly debugged. Its worth it for the shared_ptr's alone- those alone dramatically reduce the biggest source of C++ bugs.
In my previous company, I worked on a system that was about 10 years old- started before the STL came into existence, and long before it was well supported by compilers, and thus the team had spent a lot of time building STL-like functionality with dynamic strings, iterator like functionality, vector/list work-alikes, etc. This meant that now once the STL came around, a programmer familiar with "standard" C++ had to learn how to re-do mundane things like string and container manipulation. Similarly, that team had created smart pointer implementations, logger classes, multithreaded and socket libraries, etc. Boost not only provides all of this functionality, but you get it working right out of the box, and since Boost is well known, you don't have to wait for a programmer to get up to speed for a month or two while he becomes familiar with your code.
There are some more exotic features that you don't have to use, but I recently used multi_index to implement what is more or less an in-memory database cache in about 100 lines of code. This replaced a lot of code that read records and then threw them into hash maps or vectors using the OrderId as a key, then the CustomerId as a key, etc... so we had fast lookups to our most commonly used objects.
What are its advantages over ACE? ACE is a great networking and concurrency library, which not all applications necessarily need, and ACE's strong point is multi-platform networking and concurrency, which while I wouldn't call a small niche anymore, can't be used across all applications. At least some of Boost's libraries, most notably shared_ptr, can be used in any C++ program. In fact, until Boost::asio was released relatively recently, I would say ACE and Boost were entirely complementary. Also, boost is more or less a testing ground for the C++ standards committee, so it is more or less "blessed" and can be seen as a Beta for future versions of the standard.
Parent
Re:Some counterpoints. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Some counterpoints. (Score:4, Insightful)
Again, I don't think I'm being unfair, I'm just saying why I use what I use. Python provides more libraries for the stuff I use than C++ does. "Batteries included" makes my life easier. Maybe this isn't fair to C++. So what if it's not? Should I make my life more difficult by using C++ out of a sense of fairness?
As for GC goes, no, it's not "just another memory management aid". Non-GC versus GC is the difference between having to think about memory management and not having to. Automatic refcounting still forces you to manually find and break reference cycles, and garbage collection does not.
Parent
Re:Some counterpoints. (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, if C++ included the same libraries that Python does, this objection would go away. (Why wouldn't it?) The other objections would remain.
And no, GC does stop you from having to think about memory management. So-called "soft leaks" aren't a memory management problem, they're just a regular old code bug. GC doesn't save you from all bugs, or even from a particularly large number of them. It mainly just saves you from programming overhead.
GC also doesn't save you from having to manage external resources as that SafeHandle class does.
RAII is definitely not the design pattern I want. Believe me, I know what RAII is, and I know what I want, and the two do not intersect in any way.
I know it's hard to believe, but there are people out there who legitimately do not like C++. Not because we're stupid, or clueless, or because we've been misled, but simply because we have different constraints on our programming or even just different opinions.
Parent
Re:I just don't get it.... (Score:4, Funny)
Error 2317 - Invalid analogy - no wheels. Bailing...
Parent
Re:It hurts you to learn C++ is still being used. (Score:4, Insightful)
I've found that the biggest advantage for C++ is the portability. I have written an application backend for PC's (back in the days of DOS) and since then ported it through various versions of windows, Linux (for web use), Palms, and Pocket PC's.
Using C++ allowed me to very easily make the different processor needs, compatible, by writing little compatibility layers, which would swap bigend values, unpack data structures from disk into memory (so is on even boundary). and so on.
Yes the fast speed was why I originally went with the C/C++ route, but the big benefit has been the portability.
Parent
Re:It hurts you to learn C++ is still being used. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:It hurts you to learn C++ is still being used. (Score:5, Insightful)
...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.
Parent
Re:It hurts you to learn C++ is still being used. (Score:5, Interesting)
> I'm just positively amazed that Slashdot, in theory home of programmer geeks anywhere, should have such a violent dislike of C++.
Because C++ is not a pure language. It is a multi-paradigm language (imperative, OO and functional) with both a high and low-level language features and people seem to hate the aspect they which they don't prefer.
The close-to-the-metal types hate the high-level aspects and rather use C. Disregarding the fact, that changing the code from C to C++ is purely syntactical and runs without any detriment in performance. Exactly the prime idea behind C++.
The high-level people dislike C++ exactly for this approach. They don't like that the basics are so clearly visible, and are even the default. You have to hop through some loops, before you get to a higher abstraction layer. E.g. you have to use external libraries and/or special classes for memory management.
Personally, I like C++ for exactly that reason. I can start on a fairly abstract layer with pure virtual interfaces, smart pointer, signal slots and there is not a single (raw) pointer or a manual deallocation to see (or other manual resource deallocation).
Granted, it is more verbose than in a pure high level language, but that is what the machine has to do.
And if there is a performance bottleneck, I can seamless go down in the abstraction level from simple inline functions, over imperative functions with pointer arithmetic, down to inline assembler and can even guarantee a certain timing, if necessary.
Parent
Re:It hurts you to learn C++ is still being used. (Score:4, Insightful)
There are vanishingly few programmer geeks left on slashdot. Most of the "programmers" here, these days, are folks who've written a few scripts or set up a movable type install.
There are a few real programmers left here, but they're lost in the noise. You know, the roaring noise made by the python and ruby folks.
This post brought to you by a C++ programmer who happens to love Python and Ruby ( and javascript! it's an amazing language ), but uses the different languages where appropriate.
Parent
Re:It hurts you to learn C++ is still being used. (Score:4, Insightful)
And I can say with a straight face that you are wrong.
If you base your experiences on pre-2000s C++, you know very little of modern C++. I have been developing in it for more than 10 years, and a few years ago I would have agreed with you, but things have changed. Really.
Parent
Re:It hurts you to learn C++ is still being used. (Score:5, Interesting)
I am not going to go read a book simply to settle an argument: you need to summarize here.
In particular, explain to me why his techniques are not generally applicable to other languages (or to Python or Ruby in particular) or why using those techniques or similar ones and interfacing to C when necessary actually provide a less efficient development environment.
I know C++ can be made "acceptable" as a high-level language through sufficient effort; I spent 7 years doing such a thing. I want to know why that's a better solution than using tools that are---out-of-the-box and without reference to a magic cookbook---ready to do the things that require months of development or dozens of third-party libraries to achieve in C++.
Parent
Re:It hurts you to learn C++ is still being used. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:And Then COBOL 2009 (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:And Then COBOL 2009 (Score:5, Insightful)
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++.
Parent
Re:Why not just call it C++#? (Score:4, Insightful)
Trust your uncle Bjarne. If you don't use it, you don't pay for it. You need not worry that the language is turning into C# or Python. It's still just as efficient for bare-metal programming as C ever was (and more so in some cases, with template specialization at compile time).
As for 'automatic memory management', that was one of C's big features. Remember the 'auto' keyword?
Parent
Re:Why not just call it C++#? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh please. Pascal does everything C++ can now [freepascal.org].
Parent
Re:To all the C++ haters (Score:4, Funny)
Please elaborate; I'd like to hate C++ more effectively.
Parent
Re:Garbage Collection? No? BAH! (Score:4, Informative)
Parent