Re: [dev] [OT] What's wrong with C++?
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Szabolcs Nagy n...@port70.net wrote: i once looked into this, here is what i've found: http://port70.net/~nsz/16_c++.html * quote: c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */ This is utterly brilliant. -- # Kurt H Maier
Re: [dev] [OT] What's wrong with C++?
This is how I remember where ++ does what :D On 9/12/10, Kurt H Maier karmaf...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Szabolcs Nagy n...@port70.net wrote: i once looked into this, here is what i've found: http://port70.net/~nsz/16_c++.html * quote: c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */ This is utterly brilliant. -- # Kurt H Maier
Re: [dev] [OT] What's wrong with C++?
One of my maxims is that everyone mistakenly thinks that the kind of
programs that they write are the kind of programs everyone writes.
There are arguments against C++. Nothing more than that.
I'd use Python to check md5 hash of my downloads
$alias md5.=python -c \import hashlib; print
hashlib.md5(open('$1').read()).hexdigest()\
Should I write md5.py, I could port it on M$Win and with Autohotkey I could
make it
start when I middle-click a file on explorer and pop the result up in the tray,
with 3 more lines of code.
Of course this could suck less. Python and Autohotkey require interpreters and
libraries.
Who cares. I could write it in C of course. But this is the first thing that
comes to my
mind that gets the job done, sucks relatively, it's damn fast to write, easy to
read and
it's good to me because I use those interpreters for a load of things.
Why program in C++ when you can do it in C, making the program simpler and
better?
When you can't make the program simpler and better, or you need to do it faster
than you do in C, just write C++ or whatever.
This is just the place where people write about C, little overheads and simpler
programs.
---
Wyrmskull lordkran...@gmail.com
Re: [dev] [OT] What's wrong with C++?
On 09/10/2010 07:46 PM, v4hn wrote: On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 08:19:38PM +0300, Nikhilesh S wrote: I haven't really understood the problems with C++ that the people here that have problems with C++ have[...] Felix von Leitner gave a pretty good presentation in 2007 on such problems :) http://www.fefe.de/c++/c%2b%2b-talk.pdf From looking at FeFe's presentation just some notes: His complaints are mostly corner cases. You can produce some stupid corner cases where the language sucks for every language. Additionally from someone who can't properly code (look at his open source stuff...) one should simply stop reading when he's complaining about possibly cryptic compiler output...
Re: [dev] [OT] What's wrong with C++?
On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Paolo lordkran...@gmail.com wrote: Why program in C++ when you can do it in C, making the program simpler and better? When you can't make the program simpler and better, or you need to do it faster than you do in C, just write C++ or whatever. This is just the place where people write about C, little overheads and simpler programs. The point I was making was just that there are SOME problem domains where the features C provides fit what's needed and the C++ features aren't useful, in which case C will be simpler and better. And it's great to use it in those cases. But there are SOME other problem domains where some of the features C++ provides that aren't in C are incredibly useful in writing really clean, maintainable and more efficient code, and as such I don't think that a blanket statement Why program in C++ when you can do it in C, making the program simpler and better? is accurate. Choose the language that's best for the particular problem you're solving at the time is all I was saying. -- cheers, dave tweed__ computer vision reasearcher: david.tw...@gmail.com while having code so boring anyone can maintain it, use Python. -- attempted insult seen on slashdot
Re: [dev] [OT] What's wrong with C++?
On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 01:59:07PM +0200, Nicolai Waniek wrote: From looking at FeFe's presentation just some notes: His complaints are mostly corner cases. You can produce some stupid corner cases where the language sucks for every language. Sure, but it's quite easy for C++ ;) After all this was a c++ bashing presentation, so there was no need to add a lot of 'real' arguments. However Nikhilesh asked for problems with C++ that the people here that have problems with C++ have, and there are a number of really good examples in the slides :) Additionally from someone who can't properly code (look at his open source stuff...) one should simply stop reading when he's complaining about possibly cryptic compiler output... :D I do know his codes^^. However he does know something about auditing code and about hacking especially with C/C++ code. And in security research those corner cases are the most interesting ones. v4hn pgppiU9ckNLqY.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [dev] [OT] What's wrong with C++?
On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 10:58:19PM +0100, David Tweed wrote: On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Paolo lordkran...@gmail.com wrote: Why program in C++ when you can do it in C, making the program simpler and better? When you can't make the program simpler and better, or you need to do it faster than you do in C, just write C++ or whatever. This is just the place where people write about C, little overheads and simpler programs. The point I was making was just that there are SOME problem domains where the features C provides fit what's needed and the C++ features aren't useful, in which case C will be simpler and better. [snip] wmi started out in C++. The ideas there evolved into wmii and then dwm. The current philosophy of simple, orthogonal tools came from a dark, complicated past, where C++ was a player. As such, there is a sort of automatic disdain for C++. This of course is only my interpretation, but perhaps a historical perspective on why this philosophy is somewhat antithetical to principles embodied by C++. Perhaps Anselm can comment further. (The fact that C++ has weaknesses is documented everywhere, and readily apparent. The other fact that C++ also has great strengths, and provides useful tools for certain problems, is also readily apparent.)
[dev] [OT] What's wrong with C++?
I must start out saying I don't have much experience in software development with larger teams on large projects or with lots of other people, or in 'commercial software development' in companies - I've just done stuff as a hobby in my free time for the past 5 years or so, learning on my own - but I hope to learn more in the coming years (going to university next year). Two langauges I've used a bit are C and C++. I've used C++ in the past for writing games and other graphics programs, and in my experience it has worked rather well for that. I must 'confess' I've used inheritance a lot in this realm especially for 'GameObjects' (Player, Monster, Box - whatever) - keep a large list of these objects, a 'manager' iterates through them per-frame (or whatever event) tells them about it, and due to virtual function stuff each handles it differently based on what type of object it is. In per-frame event, Player checks for input and responds, Monster does movement stuff etc. In C, to the best of my knowledge, either you would do this by having an enum of types and 'switching' on it, or by doing a function pointer table thing (which is functionally (no pun intended) equivalent to a virtual function table right?). So aren't you just building the same idea on it again? I've also seen in a lot of open-source C code some kind of attempt at making OO-stuff in C such as the 'GObject' things. Often a lot of the code is of the form somestruct_dosomething(struct somestruct *p, ... ). I haven't really understood the problems with C++ that the people here that have problems with C++ have, although I must say in recent years (especially with C++0x?) they've been adding a lot of features and it's getting a little 'fat'. Are you just feeling the same thing, just that you probably used C before C++ or have otherwise been at it for a long time and thus this feeling has come in earlier? Maybe C++ is 'complex' but doing things with it is 'simple', whereas it's the other way round in C? Look at ASM and C for instance - I've only lightly touched ASM but I think it's simpler than C but doing things in C is simpler than in ASM. Is C++ broken because no one really understands it fully? Is allowing multiple paradigms in a single langauge a problem? Should language enforce paradigm? Could you elaborate in detail, what exactly are your problems with C++? Thanks. :) I do not intend that you code in C++ or that suckless adopt C++ or something - I simply want to see some opinions and maybe some instances from real-life experience that would help me develop my own opinion to help me decide on what language to use for programs I write in the future. In fact I quite like C, but I don't dislike C++. -- Nikhilesh S http://www.nikhilesh.info
Re: [dev] [OT] What's wrong with C++?
Uriel has a page on that, you can find some link there. http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/c++/ C++ inserts a serie of unneeded complexity to the straightforwardness of C. If you think object-orientedly, you sure imagine a lot of Player objects each with a Position object (x,y,z) referenced to a Scenario object. Lists also exist in C. You could write instead a C program which is a PlayerManager, which spawns n Player threads, and communicates with another program which is a Scenario. This would remove the need of a big monolithic program and would add to modularity. You could spawn every Player routine from a PlayerManager program which would communicate with a Scenario program which represent the game's Universe. Let's also add that an addictive game doesn't have to have full blown graphics, think about puzzle games, arcades, Pet Society, Farmville, Ogame. Roleplaying games mainly involved text for some decade, and we could mention Crobots. Why program in C++ when you can do it in C, making the program simpler and better? GObject-like things is about thinking objects in a non OO language. It's just bad imho. C++ is understood fully by people here (not talking about myself), but people do have their opinion, likes and dislikes. --- Wyrmskull lordkran...@gmail.com
Re: [dev] [OT] What's wrong with C++?
* Nikhilesh S s.nikhil...@gmail.com [2010-09-10 20:19:38 +0300]: Is C++ broken because no one really understands it fully? Is allowing multiple paradigms in a single langauge a problem? Should language enforce paradigm? Could you elaborate in detail, what exactly are your problems with C++? Thanks. :) i once looked into this, here is what i've found: http://port70.net/~nsz/16_c++.html
Re: [dev] [OT] What's wrong with C++?
There is a good analysis of C++ monstrosity: http://yosefk.com/c++fqa -- Ramil Farkhshatov
Re: [dev] [OT] What's wrong with C++?
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 7:19 PM, Paolo lordkran...@gmail.com wrote: Why program in C++ when you can do it in C, making the program simpler and better? One of my maxims is that everyone mistakenly thinks that the kind of programs that they write are the kind of programs everyone writes. There are some domains in which C is simpler, there are some domains in which C++ yields simpler programs, assuming you account carefully for all the complexity caused by macros and conventions which have to be ensured by the programmer. (Incidentally, I think the I only use 10 per cent of the language, so it must be bloated are people who don't realise not everyone writes the kind of programs they do, and would presumably also object to a natural language which is big enough to be usable by both poets and lawyers. Now, complaints about the bad interaction between C++ features are more justified...) My opinion on C++ is, basically, every major feature in C++ is in response to a real difficulty in programming that's worth attempting to ameliorate, but the solutions chosen by C++ are often suboptimal, and very often interact badly with other features. I'm also of the opinion that many of the worst elements of C++ are due to the design requirement to in essence have a block of code which is valid C have the same semantics as in C (and to some extent the desire to keep using object file/linker formats bassed in the 70s); that strongly constrains some important basics to annoying things. My biggest concern about the latest evolving standard C++0x is that it attempts to cram even more functionality into a design space that's already highly constrained by both C compatibility and existing C++ compatibility. Of course, Stroustrup argues that C++ wouldn't have become popular had it not constantly been presented as incremental evolution. A lot of my work is writing numerical code that is quite performance critical. As such, I find it almost invaluable to be able to write a template function so that one source base can work on int8_t's, , floats, doubles, complexfloat, etc, with proper typechecking rather than in C with kludges using macros that render debugging a nightmare. That combined with C++'s namespaces (which whilst not a proper module system, are a godsend if you need to QUICKLY create a program which uses two existing libraries that happen to use the same name) is enough to mean that, FOR MY KIND OF PROGRAMMING, I'd rather use MY subset of C++ that doesn't have bad interactions than have to write in C doing lots of C++ stuff by hand. But I expect some people working on other kinds of problems have their own subset of C++ that they use, and some people working on other kinds of programming are best served by C. So for me, C++ is basically a good idea with a botched implementation, and I think it's a bit of a shame that D Java has semantics designed for a managed interpreter, D still appears to be primarily supported by a few developers, that Go does not have any interest in efficient numerical computation, BitC appears to have only one developer, etc. To be honest, if it wasn't so heavily based on an ecosystem, and possibly legal issues, that are controlled by Microsoft I might have tried moving to C#. -- cheers, dave tweed__ computer vision reasearcher: david.tw...@gmail.com while having code so boring anyone can maintain it, use Python. -- attempted insult seen on slashdot
Re: [dev] [OT] What's wrong with C++?
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 08:19:38PM +0300, Nikhilesh S wrote: I must start out saying I don't have much experience in software development with larger teams on large projects or with lots of other people, or in 'commercial software development' in companies - I've just done stuff as a hobby in my free time for the past 5 years or so, learning on my own - but I hope to learn more in the coming years (going to university next year). Wow you write long emails for flame-bait... There's a very good quote to answer your question in brief, C++: an octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog. In C, to the best of my knowledge, either you would do this by having an enum of types and 'switching' on it, or by doing a function pointer table thing (which is functionally (no pun intended) equivalent to a virtual function table right?). So aren't you just building the same idea on it again? I've also seen in a lot of open-source C code some kind of attempt at making OO-stuff in C such as the 'GObject' things. Often a lot of the code is of the form somestruct_dosomething(struct somestruct *p, ... ). Please don't mention GObject. Nearly anything GNU is not worth mentioning. I haven't really understood the problems with C++ that the people here that have problems with C++ have, although I must say in recent years (especially with C++0x?) they've been adding a lot of features and it's getting a little 'fat'. Are you just feeling the same thing, just that you probably used C before C++ or have otherwise been at it for a long time and thus this feeling has come in earlier? Maybe C++ is 'complex' but doing things with it is 'simple', whereas it's the other way round in C? Look at ASM and C for instance - I've only lightly touched ASM but I think it's simpler than C but doing things in C is simpler than in ASM. Is C++ broken because no one really understands it fully? Is allowing multiple paradigms in a single langauge a problem? Should language enforce paradigm? It's not OO that we're against. Not per se, anyway. It's that C++ is simply a poorly designed hodge-podge that basically nails a lot of extra features on C, without any real core design principles, and incidentally kept the heinous old textual preprocessor and added yet another symbolic preprocessor just to insult to insanity. For an example of what C++ should have been, have a look at D, which is easily as simple as C and more powerful than C++. And now there's Go, and there's always been Lisp and Objective-C, both of which have cleaner designs than C++ and follow the original Object Oriented model much better than the latter. -- Kris Maglione You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother. --Albert Einstein
