It's surprising that C++'s development trend continues.
When a game or program is made with C++, it's usually nice because performance is mostly guaranteed. But if someone told me to write C++ myself, I'd cry. There's too much to memorize, and the standards are too varied. When I go to a project site for maintenance and it's a C++ project, I instantly lose energy — because it's just too difficult.
I'd be happy if someone else wrote it, but it's not a language I want to write myself
Personally I don't find programming with C++ that hard. The downside is it needs a brain warm-up, and this is per project, but once that flywheel is spinning, I find it almost effortless to write code.
I have to go through the same warm-up more or less for any language I work with, so it's not that different than writing Python, Go or Java for me.
I agree.
You don't learn or know C++ in the way you learn or know C.
You never have the total language spec in mind. Much of it you will never (and for some of it should never) come across.
The way I think of it
C is an abstraction of the machine, so thin it's nearly transparent.
C++ is an abstraction over programming paradigms, letting you pick how you think.
Everything else abstracts the machine away, replacing it with a VM, runtime, or model of its own.
The same way a good project has a clear model of the problem it should have a clear C++ pattern in use.
> C is an abstraction of the machine, so thin it's nearly transparent.
Looks like someone fell for the C abstract machine trap yet again. No, C is isn’t an abstraction of the machine.
C Is Not a Low-level Language: Your computer is not a fast PDP-11.
https://spawn-queue.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3212477.3212479
As a corollary, all processors are C VMs, anyway.
It may not be an abstraction of a real machine. But the C abstract machine is very close to the foundational idea of how a computer work. And it’s quite easy to bootstrap.
Importantly my work involves me often being able to look at C and think about the assembly and back and I regularly work on ESP32, ch42(riscv) and atmega avr8.
I couldn't do that with mciropython on any platform.
C is a thin abstraction, python isn't.
I find C++ not hard at all when working with familiar idioms, restrictions and toolings (familiar to me). But it's hard jumping into new codebases and adjusting yourself to new patterns. Recently I did a lot of programming using C++23 Modules and it was a breeze.
There's basically dozens of very nice languages inside C++. That can be a blessing or a curse.
I'm anxious for Herb Sutter's CPP2/CPPFront to become a standard.
In February this year Herb tweaked a test case. That was his last commit to his "CPP2 syntax experiment". Don't expect it to "become a standard".
https://github.com/hsutter/cppfront/commits/main/
That's a shame! It's a lovely language.
Is it really, though, or is it just in comparison to C++?
Tbh I never expected that experiment to go anywhere. I guess that leaves Carbon (and large scale efforts to rewrite C++ in Rust).
I personally really like the syntax and the defaults, and I like it more than the C++ alternatives.
What type of project actually uses C++ 23 modules in real life? What kind of toolchain enables that? When I worked on Chromium, they were indefinitely in the "maybe in 5-10 years the tooling will be ready" camp.
The tooling people have - as of about a year ago said they are ready. Now everyone who considers themselves early adopters is using then. Most are waiting for the early adopters to figure out what the best practices are so we don't make a mess
What early adopters are using them? Because my impression is the tooling still isn’t there
People using Visual C++ with MSBuild, or clang with CMake and ninja.
CMake says they are there. Other tools mostly are not.
Nobody has said they are using them in anything important, but hopefully that is coming.
CMake has support for named modules but does not support header units or C++23 module features such as import std;
Import std has been there for a while but is experimental until gcc supports it. Gcc just for that support so it should be mainline soon.
C++20 is pretty common and gives you already a pretty nice engineering experience.
YC startup. Toolchain was Clang and sh.
Chromium is gonna be more conservative than that for sure.
Looked up what C++23 Modules were and I must say I was not let down.
>I'm anxious for Herb Sutter's CPP2/CPPFront to become a standard.
Why? It doesn't remove complexity, it (partially) hides it and makes the whole thing even more complex.
I enjoy the syntax and the defaults he picked, and it matches the way I use C++. I prefer it to all the C/C++ alternatives.
There are so many standards and idioms that it gets confusing. There are still legacy codebases out there — some codebase still use C++98 as their standard, others use C++11... And with Unreal Engine, the modern C++ standard is C++14, right? There are things like smart pointers, but some places don't even use them. I feel like there are just too many features. When I saw template metaprogramming — that new feature — I realized I have no talent for C++.
I have developed things with C++98, C++11 and C++14. Every of these standards are so vast, so remembering everything (even in a single standard) is not possible. Instead of knowing everything, I first fix the standard I want or need to work with.
Then I design the thing I want to build. I always design what I want to build beforehand. This takes a couple of iterations from high level to low-ish level. That last design becomes a bit language dependent. Then I select some of the core tools that I'm going to use (which kind of pointers, classes or structs, etc.)
With that design in mind, I go "library shopping" both for file formats (if any) or other stuff like vectors, etc.
Armed with the reference docs of these, I write my code with the toolbelt I have built for the project.
Some things are hard, but they are not impossible. I find thinking like compiler helps a lot.
This is true of any language. Python with flask vs django, with/without type hints. JavaScript with anhular and vue.
The varying standards are no different to major python versions or go versions - arguably there’s even less between most versions than there is in your average go release.
The differences in apps and frameworks don’t matter for day to day - std::string, Unreal’s FString and QT’s QString all are similar enough that 99.9% of the time.
Metaprogramming is one of those things; you either write it or you don’t. Knowing some basics is required but the vast majority of people use a handful of pre existing things without understanding the nuances of how it works under the hood.
> This is true of any language
Is it? Java has changed a lot, but in such a way that it's still easy to mentally map new features to the old ones, provided you have understood the core language. IDEs can even convert your code from old to new and back.
> When I saw template metaprogramming — that new feature — I realized I have no talent for C++.
It's not a new feature. And tbh, compared to Typescript, C++ templates are tame ;)
(but yeah, deciding when to stop digging into the template metaprogramming rabbit hole requires some common sense and sanity, too much template complexity is almost never worth the hassle)
It was a new feature. Over 30 years ago now. Template metaprogramming was even featured in the ARM.
> And with Unreal Engine, the modern C++ standard is C++14, right?
Unreal Engine depends on C++20 at this point.
https://dev.epicgames.com/documentation/unreal-engine/epic-c...
When I went on a business trip for screen golf program project back then, it was UE4(CPP14), By your introduction UE5 onward, it's 20. I've updated my knowledge.
> The downside is it needs a brain warm-up, and this is per project, but once that flywheel is spinning, I find it almost effortless to write code.
How is that different from other languages, which don't need the brain warm-up?
The difference, if you split hairs, that the brain warm-up takes a bit longer. Maybe a couple of hours, or a day at most.
Otherwise it's not different for me. I don't feel different while writing with any other language. I guess the main reason is I always think like the computer first and translate that thinking to the programming language at hand.
For games, C++ becomes a much simpler language since game code bases usually ignore the C++ stdlib (at least mostly, and for good reasons, e.g. see [0]). And without the stdlib C++ is actually kinda-sorta okay-ish.
Related, the main problem with the C++ ecosystem is that everybody carves out their own language subset, so it's not one ecosystem but many ecosystems with contradicting styles and language/stdlib subsets. This makes code reuse via libraries much harder than it should be.
[0] https://hftuniversity.com/post/the-c-standard-library-has-be...
I fully agree. In my personal project, I ended up using the STL to get off the ground, but in the end I replaced pretty much everything with custom-written code.
Once you get rid of the STL, compile times get so much better. With modern c++23 features, templates actually become really convenient to write, and at the core there is a really useful and pleasant to use language.
I try to avoid c++ libraries and instead rely on c-style APIs. Usually the c++ style libraries force you into using the STL, which comes with a heavy tax on compile times, without much benefit in comfort of use.
What, you rewrote std::deque? Whew!
Deque is one of the easier ones.
I echo the parent commenter - the STL has a massive negative impact on compile times. And for what? The STL is not even fast. The way the standards are written, std::unordered_map has to be implemented as a tree rather than a flat open-addressing hashtable, which would've been far superior due to cache locality.
For my own project I rolled my own string, string_view, map, set, optional, variant, and vector. Only took maybe a day. And that day has paid dividends, as my clean debug builds literally take 3 seconds now.
Rewriting at least std::vector was a standard way to prep for a Google interview. And std::map if you wanted bonus points or a level up. Also, really interesting to do.
If you don't use the STL you end up re-implementing it yourself. Usually poorly.
> Usually poorly.
On the contrary. You can focus exactly on the features the higher level game code needs. The C++ stdlib is (for the most part) poorly designed, usually poorly implemented, the main reason for slow build times, and its complexity explodes because it needs to consider all edge cases that most code bases don't ever trigger.
A specialized dynamic array class in a few hundred lines (at most!) and with just the required features is much more useful than the 20kloc monster that's pulled in with `#include <vector>` and which doesn't even do bounds checking in the 'idiomatic' usage.
Saying it doesn't even do bounds checking (in release builds) is to miss one of the major points of C++ - not paying for what you don't need. It's not a mistake, it's a feature.
You complain about it not being suitable for game development in one comment but then expect bounds checking in release builds? You're sitting in multiple lanes at the same time.
NIH implementations are usually grossly inferior because as it turns out, it's quite hard to get it right and those edge-cases aren't important until you start getting bitten by them when you'd rather be shipping features.
> bounds checking in release builds
Bounds checking overhead is negligible for all but the absolutely hottest code paths (fwiw we shipped active asserts, including bounds checking asserts in all the PC games I was involved with - carefully monitoring the overhead of course).
The main reason to not use the stdlib isn't so much about squeezing out the last bit of performance, but about control of what actually happens under the hood (and also compilation times). The overall runtime cost of all those active asserts (not just the range checks, everything) was somewhere in the 2..3% range, which is fine when budgeted for upfront.
That's your opinion, others won't agree and would much rather not pay the price at all.
Those asserts probably saved a lot of development costs and increased the robustness of the software, which is worth a lot more than a few percent on a benchmark.
I personally am more conservative on those things. I'll pick the fastest thing that is reliable.
Are we talking about games or medical devices here? I expect different things from them. If a medical device needs to turn off bounds checking to get results I'm concerned enough to not want to let anyone use it. If a game can get a slight performance improvement I'm all for it, who cares if it crashes, it is just a game.
Who cares if it crashes? The users.
We can all agree it's not medical systems, but audio DSP and game dev both end up rewriting a lot of STL stuff to suit their needs, and often using a restricted subset of modern C++ features for similar reasons.
That isn't some arbitrary choice, but pretty much where everyone continually ends up when solving real-time problems using C++. Whether those be games or not.
You can prevent more than enough crashes with enough testing to make gamers happy. Even if you prove there is not out of bounds error I still want a medical device to check
Screw this game! I lost all of my progress because it crashed and the last auto-save is 10 minutes old. Uninstalled. 0 stars. Getting a refund.
The point is that STL does make you pay for stuff you don't need. In complexity and compile times. There's reasons Jai is being developed, and they're not all that Jonathon Blow is weird. As much as C++ owns the game industry right now, it has observable deficits as a great game programming language.
Sometimes there are ways of getting runtime bounds checking.
For example, both of these return the 3rd element of a std::vector:
Yes, with the trade-off of essentially requiring exceptions, which are also banned in some codebases.
Yes I don't disagree that sometimes a specific container or a data structure is great for the problem. Problem is that most of the game code and related code (so tooling,editor, auxiliary engine code) does need a typical STL type functionality and then when the org has "omg no STL" blanket rule someone ends up implementing STL and that's almost always worse than the STL that ships with the tool chain. Even worse..it'll be missing features and data structures and then people have to write sub-optimal code to work around it's limitations.
Top tier game orgs are often large enough to have good people write their own library with the correct compromises. They also tend to need micro performance improvements enough to be worth it.
Most of the rest of us STL is good enough.
Yeah, EA open sourced their STL, although now that C++23 is supported (aside from on MSVC? Still not flat_map there?!?) there is some replication in the STL.
Not uncommon for audio companies to also write their own containers and internal STL for ex. plugins as well.
I find it hard to agree that the stdlib is poorly designed and implemented. In my entire career it has pretty much worked entirely to spec.
Yes, it can exhibit non-optimal performance, and in some specific cases (regex's especially), extremely poor performance, but that's not the same as being poorly designed and implemented, especially given the breadth of the thing.
C++ stdlib was barely acceptable in the 1990s but is heavily outdated today and suffers from deeply frustrating design flaws.
The ABI Nightmare - The C++ committee has this extraordinarily weird and strict rule: never break the Application Binary Interface (ABI). If a better algorithm or memory layout is discovered, the standard library cannot adopt it because doing so would change object layouts and break existing binaries. The worst part is that this ABI is never defined, so you always HEAVILY pay for what you DON'T use.
std::regex - the Programming Language Joke of the millennium. Even an interpreted language regex engine runs faster.
std::map, std::unordered_map - outdated, badly-designed and slow crap that is beaten even by high-school coders writing map data-structures.
No bounds checking. And Undefined Behavior by Default for operators like std::vector::operator[]
std::iostream - bloated, expensive design, std::vector<bool> - another joke.
Silent Iterator Invalidations causing unpredictable memory corruption.
No deprecation strategy. There are FOUR callable wrappers. At-least, have the courage to say @DEPRECATED.
No Standard Networking.
Missing System Utilities - nothing for process management, standard cryptography, or basic command-line argument parsing, etc.
To be honest, this is just the common complaints - if you run through all the stdlib features, there are dozens of severe problems. Which all the smart people know about, but are forbidden to fix - because of ABI!
Which is why one of the security measures in C++26 is to make bounds checking idiomatic, finally.
The STL is not good if you want performance or predictable behavior. The issue is in the specification and the requirements placed on certain algorithms and data structures. It’s easy to beat unordered_map for example with an open addressing hash map, small vector optimization can’t be implemented in vector due to standard requirements, etc.
some of the STL is easy to improve on. For example, std::unordered_map performs poorly due to pointer stability requirements in the standard. Most performance sensitive C++ codebases will use something like abseil's hash maps instead.
Just a heads-up: if you're already using boost, boost::unordered now has open addressing containers (unordered_flat_map and unordered_flat_map) and they are among the fastest.
Seconding this - boost::unordered_flat_map was only added in December 2022 and many people don't know about it yet.
Which is worse? std's mess or one you control? I'd take any random game engine's STL over std any day.
C+ Standard Template Library is the best designed part of C++ library. It was designed by Alexander Stepanov.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Stepanov
So, a few things (aside from the whole nomenclature argument already in another reply)
1. Stepanov's generic programming is a good idea. Every language you've seen with "generics" that's his idea, to the extent "The STL" is generic programming, everybody agreed it's a good idea.
2. But the STL is very old now, so while the idea is good, this is one of the oldest (Stepanov had tried this in other languages before C++) implementations and so other implementations are often better, because they've learned from experience
3. As well as pretty good generic algorithms, the STL also provides a lot of container types (what Rust would call collection types) and these vary not between "excellent" and "mediocre" but between "mediocre" and "inexplicably terrifying". The most charitable explanation is that they're just intended for teaching. If you teach DS&A to a Computer Science class you want the Extrusive Doubly Linked List to teach in class. If you write software you almost certainly never need this type, but it's front an centre in the C++ STL.
There's a single "I guess I would use this" container type, std::vector. It has an insane special case for bool, because WG21 are idiots, but it's otherwise a good enough growable array type and it's not worth building your own instead given the constraints.
Everything else is silly, or bad, or both. std::unordered_map feels like a hash table I made in class in the mid 1990s, but it's actually the provided standard hash table container in C++ 11 onwards. std::list is just that extrusive linked list for some insane reason. The Microsoft standard library maintainer STL could not offer me any justification for what std::deque is actually supposed to be for.
I would argue that even the basic concept behind STL is misguided. The rationale I often see is "you only need N algorithms for M container type, instead of N*M". This ignores the fact that algorithms and data structures are not independent of each other, and also that most of the time these days you're operating on vectors, so M ~= 1.
Case in point: list::sort. You don't want to try running quicksort on a linked list. Or remove_if: great we've abstracted the difficult task of removing things without erasing them, except we can't do it on maps. (C++20 seems to add an erase_if, apparently admitting that the two-step remove/erase is silly).
Then there's the fact that C++ iterators are basically pointers into the data structure, where for vectors (your common case) you'd do much better with index/container pairs, both for stability and bounds checking.
List::sort is present exactly for this reason
STD::sort only works on a random access iterator, it won’t even compile if you try it on a list
AFAIK, std::map is also OK for what it is: an ordered, node-based (tree) map. These are (almost) always slower than hash tables. Of course, std::unordered_map, the std hash table, sucks because of unforced errors. For that, there is boost::unordered_flat_map.
> There's a single "I guess I would use this" container type, std::vector.
About that one... I would claim that in a majority of cases where an std::vector is used, what the author really wanted was a similar type, but whose size and capacity are fixed on construction and never change. The standard C++ library does not offer such a type - so people use vector because it's handy.
Agree with your takes on most of the containers. I also dislike how optionals are never used with containers as they were standardized later (and even then, problematically w.r.t. references). Thus, for example, if I lookup an object in a map of T's, the result should IMNSHO be an optional reference to a T.
> a similar type, but whose size and capacity are fixed on construction and never change.
There is std::array for that. Also, for a type with fixed capacity but variable (up to that capacity) size, we're getting std::inplace_vector soon™.
std::array requires the size to be set at compile-time, while I was talking about arrays whose size is determined at construction-time. Of course std::array is also quite the useful class :-)
What operations could such frozen vector offer that std::vector does not? If there are none, it doesn't need a separate data structure.
Oh, on the contrary, the separate structure is needed and useful because it offers _less_, not more:
* APIs/function signatures explain more clearly what are the intended uses of the structure that's passed.
* More potential for compiler optimization
* Some potential for having these on the stack (if the compiler deduces the size already at compile-time)
* More convenient for static analysis
* No plethora of confusing constructors (including the infernal two-element ctors which can be misinterpreted super-easily)
etc.
It has some very useful principles, but also some super-annoying gaffes and mis-design aspects. One example: Allocators. What a mess! Or the fact that if a map lookup fails, an exception is thrown. I can't count the times I've had some app just bail out on me with an at() exception, because the author neglected to handle it (and the map/unordered map interface did not force them to). That does not detract from Stepanov's important work.
The kind of programmer who don't check (or think through so that they can't fail) their map lookups is also the kind of programmer who don't bother with const. What a non-const unchecked map lookup gives you is a default-constructed value that has just been inserted for the only reason that operator[] returns a reference, which must "point" to something. That's bad and can be confusing, but it doesn't crash.
I see that problem much more often than crashes due to unchecked map lookups in production, which are very rare for me. Less than once a year.
Nowadays also used by many of us (wrongly) to refer to the overall C++ standard library, instead of what was inherited from C.
Your citation refers to the register keyword and trigraphs, among other language features -- the author seems to have forgotten his own point, among a number of other inconsistencies and contradictions, and at times seems to go out of his way to come across as a jerk, e.g., "This is what fifteen years of standards work on an eight-letter keyword looks like".
People love to rag on the standards committee. I was on X3J11, the C Language Standards Committee, in 1989 ... in fact, due to alphabetical order I was the first person on the planet to vote to approve the C language standard -- the one that first standardized register and trigraphs. Standards work is hard and everyone hates you for it.
The C Committee is fine and doing great work! The C++ Committee could actually learn a thing or two from how things are done on the C side.
Like strings and arrays?
Or _Keywords with an additional header file?
Maybe something_ names as proper namespaces are too hard?
One could mention better testing before adding features to the standards, but then C99 VLAs happened.
That article probably isn't the best source to cite. You can look at the discussions on it elsewhere, although I'd just dismiss it as slop.
The standard library is mostly fine to use unless you have specific needs.
The bit about libraries is nonsense, sorry.
The article might be slop, but the problems described in it are definitely real ;)
Grossly exaggerated or misunderstood in many cases. Some of their arguments are just flat-out wrong.
I mean, why are they blaming the standard library for inherent properties of linked lists? Yeah, you don't want to use them without good reason. That's just called picking the right data structure for the job, not a flaw with the standard library.
Some of the other choices were tradeoffs between performance and usability. The standard maps have stable iterators, whereas third-party implementations almost never do because you can write faster implementations if you're willing to live without those guarantees. Was it the right choice in hindsight? Maybe, maybe not.
I'd personally like to see a namespaced versioned standard library but like that's ever going to happen
As I understood the article, the main critique is that the stdlib has no concept of deprecation and breaking backward compatibility. E.g. the C++ committee is quick to add badly designed features to the stdlib but then can't roll them back when people actually realize that those new features are useless for most real-world code.
I'm not sure this is a winnable game for programming languages.
- Keep a small stdlib, like JavaScript (especially earlier JavaScript): everyone complains about missing features, warring communities form around jQuery promises vs. Promises/A+ vs. callbacks, supply chain attacks, left-pad/is-even dependencies, etc.
- Grow a big stdlib while keeping backward compatibility, like C++: lots of cruft left around that must never be used, sitting next to newer stuff with similar names. People complain about the bloat.
- Grow a big stdlib and then break backward compatibility, like Python 2 -> 3: everyone is sad, the ecosystem churns for years.
I admit there are probably better and worse versions of each strategy, e.g., it seems to me like JavaScript's slow-but-steady accretion of primitives over time has gone OK, and it seems like apart from Python 2 -> 3 some of the PEPs I see for deprecations and replacements are reasonable. But no language has ever hit on a strategy that everyone loves, as far as I can tell.
Yet they spend a lot of time complaining about features that were deprecated or removed.
Badly designed things get replaced. For example unique_ptr replaced auto_ptr. I'm not sure if the language standard actually supports the term "deprecation" though.
Edit: Also not sure what can possibly be downvoted here.
auto_ptr is an exception. Not the rule.
Regular expressions in C++ are an example "everybody" advises against using, but it's still there. vector<bool> will stay forever and so on.
ISO/IEC 14882 contains many uses of the word "deprecation", including all the sections of Appendix D that explicitly lists all of the deprecated and removed features of the language and library.
You're right that C++ has a lot of features. But like mentioned elsewhere most projects define their own conventions and the subset of features that they use.
Also the nice thing about having a large set of features is that C,++ allows you to write very nice abstractions (or not) at both very low or at very high level. In other words you can be very low level with online ASM and bit operations and bit and direct memory manipulation or very high level almost like a script language. Whatever the problem domain needs C++ has got you covered.
One of my hobbies is rummaging around thrift stores appreciating tacky things from bygone eras, sifting through ill-conceived modern junk, and delighting in simple, solid tools where I can find them.
That's what it's like to be a C++ programmer.
I don't really understand this perspective. You don't need to memorize anything to learn a new programming language. You choose a medium-sized project you've already done in another language, start with "Hello world," and add one line of code at a time until the project is done. When there's something you need that you don't know how to do, you look it up.
You'll end up with a strong understanding of the subset of the language that's actually useful for the thing you want to build.
You can be pretty productive even with 70% of the language :) It is a common misconception that C++ is suitable only for game engines and similar domains. It is perfectly fine for applications domain as well.
As a side note, regarding your profile info, unless you are based in North Korea, please at least add one 0 to your rate. You'll get more long-term and high-quality clientele.
> You can be pretty productive even with 70% of the language
Or even far less than that. I like to use it as C with lambdas and namespaces. Sprinkle in metaprogramming as needed. Even just not having to remember to call cleanup code thanks to dtors would alone be enough to sell me on it.
Only by people that started working in Web during the 2000's.
Back in the 90's, it was the main business language alongside Smalltalk, Delphi and VB.
Hence the plethora of C++ frameworks to chose from, sadly most dead since .NET and Java took over most of the use cases.
Honestly, I don't expect to find clients here. Fundamentally, you have to trust me to give me work. The amount of money doesn't really matter much to me.
I mean, the lower rates arouse suspicions. The higher you value your work, the more trustworthy you appear to clients.
Thank you for the advice. I'll think about it. Or maybe just remove the price altogether.
> But if someone told me to write C++ myself, I'd cry. There's too much to memorize, and the standards are too varied
If someone tells you to write a web app, do you also cry? Surely there's more JavaScript frameworks than subsets of C++ at this point, no? Do you also go memorize all of them? Or do you just quickly pick one, and then only learn that one, and forget the rest exist? Because that's kinda how you approach C++. You pick a subset (like, say, just modern C++, only caring about C++17 & later or whatever), and just use that. And move on with your life. There's absolutely no reason to learn how std::auto_ptr works because it's dead in the same way you aren't learning how PHP & CGI works if you're making a modern web app. They're dead relics of the past that you can just pretend don't exist.
funny, I think the same about rust.
(Safe) Rust is a lot better about the "Pit of Success" design than C++
There are fundamental technical choices to deliver that, but also ergonomic things like notice Rust's []::sort is a stable sort, whereas C++ std::sort is an unstable sort. If you don't know about sort stability in Rust what you wrote works and in C++ you get a nasty surprise.
C++ has std::sort() and std::stable_sort(). You should write what you mean, and you should know and understand your tools. Blaming the tool for your ignorance marks you as significantly less than an artisan.
Sort specifically is kind of a weird example, but C++ is full of awful naming.
std::map (which is not a hash map, which is what most people would expect), std::move (which doesn't move), std::vector (which is not a vector), and std::vector<bool> (which is not even a std::vector).
Sure, both languages offer both generic comparison sorts†. But the defaults matter and as always in C++ the defaults are wrong, here it's reflected in naming.
That's not actionable information, except in the sense that the correct action is "don't use C++". Because sure, I know about sort stability, and I know about pointer provenance, and about memory ordering, but there might be any number of things I do not know and unfortunately in C++ "you should know and understand" absolutely everything at all times, which is not viable.
† The C++ standard library sorts are both much slower than in Rust, but hey, they're also both less safe so you're really getting the worst of both worlds
> Sure, both languages offer both generic comparison sorts†. But the defaults matter and as always in C++ the defaults are wrong, here it's reflected in naming.
Why, exactly, is the c++ std::sort "wrong"? There are tradeoffs both ways. You happen to prefer stable sorting to speed, but that is a preference not an objective fact.
> Why, exactly, is the c++ std::sort "wrong"?
It's silently an unstable sort, which is surprising, and then to add insult to injury it's also slower. Yeah, I know, the C++ unstable sort is so slow it's slower than Rust's stable sort.
YMMV for input types, sizes etc but generally that's what the numbers look like and though it's not universal it's actually quite common. "I bet the C++ is faster" is the wrong instinct, sometimes by a large margin.
Not really, despite all its warts, it is exactly because of them that many reach out to C++.
Many of us don't like C, it was already too little and too unsafe, when the first C++ compilers started to hit the market in early 1990's, hence why all desktop OSes moved into C++ for their frameworks.
The return to C has caused by the rise of FOSS, UNIX winning the server room, and early GNU coding standards to use only C as main compiled language.
Additionally as many other programming language ecosystems have discovered, it is easy to beat C++ in version 1.0, and eventually all of them grow to get the complexity of their own.
I reach for C++, because the language runtimes, compiler tooling, and GPGPU frameworks I care about are partially written in C++, and I am not in the place to be writing new ecosystems myself.
I work maintaining the toolchain and language runtimes for a commercial safety-certified embedded operating system. I am deeply familiar with C and C++ because I live it and breathe it every day and have done so for over 40 years.
Most of our customers use C, probably for historic reasons but also because it is much much easier to reason about and that becomes very important when auditing for functional safety certification. If someone's life depends on your software, you really want to be able to reason about its correctness because orange jumpsuits enhance no one's complexion.
Many of customers are now using C++. From the problems they have reported, well, they just shouldn't. It's not that it is a bad language (it isn't) or that it is inherently unsafe (it really isn't: exceptions are safer than propagating return values as long as you use them in exception conditions, because not catching one will return you to a designed safe state very quickly, and RAII is the best thing since sliced cheese). It's that cutting and pasting from Stack Overflow, and now vibe coding, makes for massive codebases that are next to impossible to reason about. I now see a lot of problems from customers where my first reaction is "don't write code like that" and "you can write bad JavaScript code in any language, can't you?". While it butters my bread and I enjoy the language, I really recommend against using C++ for safety-certified embedded software. Stick to C.
If only C actually had fat pointers as Dennis Ritchie, one of the authors, proposed to WG14.
It is quite relevant to note that the C authors, were keen to explore Alef as alternative on Plan 9, and based on the learnings reduced C's role on Inferno, and eventually took part in Go's design.
Even though they were not keen into using C++ (Plan 9 doesn't even support it), they were also aware C wasn't to be used for everything.
> I really recommend against using C++ for safety-certified embedded software. Stick to C.
You're almost certainly better off with Rust at this point or, if you must have C-like development, Zig.
The return to C was caused by other languages taking over every niche where C++ is better suited than C.
There isn't even much of a "return" there. In fact, AFAIK, C++ expanded over C the entire time.
The language is fine, mostly, nowadays.
The ecosystem isn't fine - just to get a project going requires picking a non-trivial set of tools and approaches, none of which the C++ standard enforces or guides to.
For example, will you manage dependencies via packages? If so, with what? What will you use for building your project? The list goes on and on.
No it's not.
The language keeps growing, with
- new features overlapping old features from previous standards without replacing them or deprecating them (function::copyable_function vs std::function, std::less<> key for transparent lookup in maps)
- new features not usable by the layman (coroutines ...)
- Cryptic syntax (reflection...)
- Stuff you are told not to use because of performance reason and that cant be fixed because of ABI (regex)
- Compile errors that are 1km long (no, concepts are not helping here, the 'nicer' message is still buried into a hot pile of template instantiation callstack).
I wonder how many programming languages would be able to devoid of all or some of these problems when they are 40 years old.
It's easy to compare new and old languages, and saying older languages are wrinkly. Let's see how other shiny programming languages look like when they are 40 years old.
There are two kinds of programming languages: the kind everyone complains about and the kind nobody uses.
Python, Java, Lua, Ruby are ~30 years old, Ada being as old as C++.
Sure, none is perfect and they have cruft and warts, but they are not such a mess as C++ is.
So a bit like Python or any other language of similar age.
Working occasionally with modern Python helped me love and respect C++ even more.
Python3 is what, 15 years old?
I start counting from Python 1.
I personally find the lack of native package management in C++ as a blessing. Go, Python, Rust has it, and this always causes pulling in infinite number of packages for any trivial operation.
sudo-rs was pulling in 1M+ LOC as its dependency chain at one point. I believe they removed the biggest offenders, but I didn't check it recently.
That's one way to look at it, certainly. There are several OK options in that space, e.g. Conan (2) and vcpkg.
>There's too much to memorize, and the standards are too varied. When I go to a project site for maintenance and it's a C++ project, I instantly lose energy — because it's just too difficult.
If you'd already been using it for 10+ years you wouldn't feel that way, because you'd already have memorized a lot of it.
Except the language keeps growing, with
- new features overlapping old features previous standards without replacing them or deprecating them. - new features not usable by the layman - ...
See function::copyable_function vs std::function, modules, coroutines, Reflection syntax is cryptic at best, ...
You don't have to use them. There's a handful of nice to haves in modern releases but its totally fine and sane to just ignore whatever the committee is distracted by at the moment.
Hell, if you wait long enough, they'll just deprecate it before you can care to bother.
And that's the usual fallacy (just ignore the bad stuff).
But if you work with C++ in professional context, you will encounter it somewhere (library, teamate's PR, legacy code, LLM output, book / blog / conference ...). |
You actually need to know the bad stuff to be able to judge it and discard it.
We're talking about different things.
Im talking about your own personal coding. You dont have to use the new things. You dont have to know them to decide to discard them. In fact, the criteria to discard something is to not know it. You generally shouldn't be using things you dont know anyway.
The fact that other people use things you do not know is not a reason to stress out about the dumb pace and direction c++ is moving in. It is possible to enjoy a life free from fomo about the c++ standards goalposts.