The Future of C++ ?

[blangela]

If you had asked me 5 years ago about the future of C++, I would have
told you that its future was assured for many years to come. Recently,
I have been starting to wonder.

I have been teaching C++ at a local polytechnical school here in
Vancouver, Canada for approximately 8 years. Six years ago, at the
height (or should I say volume?) of the internet bubble, I had 80+
students per semester in my C++ course. Now I am fortunate to have 15
students per semester. What has changed? I believe that students are
no longer interested in learning C++. They would rather learn .NET
languages or Java (my colleages who teach these courses seem to be very
busy!). I believe it is because these other languages are easier to
learn and/or are perceived to be more relevant today.

I do believe that C++ is more difficult to learn than many of these
other languages. Despite my best efforts to make them exciting, I see
the eyes of my students start to glaze over when I start explaining
pointers. When I ask them to tokenize an english sentence (using the
strtok() function) and print the token in reverse order (they need to
declare an array of type char * and save the addresses of the tokens in
this array), I experience near panic from many of my students. But
these concepts need to be taught in a responsible C++ course. As was
pointed out to me recently, Microsoft still requires applicants to
demonstrate a very good knowledge of string manipulation using C-style
strings (none of these fancy string class objects!) when recruiting C++
programmers.

The ironic part is there is still a large demand for C++ developers
here in Vancouver. In fact, the company that I believe employs the
most developers here in Vancouver, employs almost entirely C++
programmers. This company, Electronic Arts (if you have not heard of
them, I guarantee that your kids have -- they create video games) is
only one of several gaming companies here in Vancouver that employ
primarily C++ programmers. Other companies like Kodak, MDSA, Nokia,
MDSI, etc. also employ large numbers of C++ programmers. Not
surprisingly, I have talked to several companies here in Vancouver who
are complaining that they are having difficulty finding C++ developers
and are looking at trying to recruit from abroad (eastern Europe
primarily).

I believe that many of these companies will be forced to migrate away
from C++ in the near future, simply because they will not be able to
find C++ programmers in the future. Soon the baby boomer C++
programmers will begin to retire, then the proverbial @@@@ will really
start to hit the fan!

Please tell me I am wrong, and paint me a view of the future which
includes C++.

[Greg]

Frederick Gotham wrote:

blangela:

What has changed? I believe that students are
no longer interested in learning C++. They would rather learn .NET
languages or Java (my colleages who teach these courses seem to be very
busy!). I believe it is because these other languages are easier to
learn and/or are perceived to be more relevant today.

I think that a prerequisite to being a decent programmer is to have above
average intelligence. A minority of people have above average intelligence,
and so a minorty of people aspire to be an actual bonafide programmer
programming in languages such as C and C++.

There is no question that programming in C++ requires above average
intelligence. What is very much open to question, however, is whether
that intelligence is needed for programming per se, or whether the
additional intelligence is needed solely to master the complexities of
C++ itself. In other words, is programming difficult, or is it just
that C++ makes it so? The fact that individuals are able to program
productively in other languages that lack C++'s complexity does lend
support to the latter point of view.

Moreover, isn't it possible that the complexity is self-perpetuating -
that it is in no one's interest for C++ to be any less complicated than
it is? Doesn't the complexity of C++ really work to the economic
benefit of professional C++ programmers? After all, the degree of
intelligence needed to become a C++ programmer presents a significant
barrier to entry into the profession. Therefore one could argue that
the supply of C++ programmers is being constrained to such a degree
that the number of C++ programmers cannot meet the demand. Such a
shortfall in the marketplace, the thinking goes, allows C++ programmers
to command higher salaries than their work is worth economically - and
they can thank C++'s complexity for the entire difference.

It may be instructive to draw some parallels between programming
languages and car transmissions. Programming in C++ is a lot like
driving a car with a manual transmission - both require "above average"
skill than the alternative available technology requires: be it
programming in a managed language or driving a car with an automatic
transmission.

Both automatic transmissions and managed languages are viewed as
alternatives that came along only after the original technology had
been developed. The first generation of cars had only manual
transmissions - meaning that only those skilled enough to shift gears
by hand were able to drive a car. Now the question asked about C++
above can also be asked here: was it the case that driving required
such skills or was it simply that the manual transmission made driving
more difficult than it otherwise had to be?

Similarly, was the development of the automatic transmission a good or
bad development? One could criticize the automatic transmission because
it put a great number of "less skilled" drivers on the road -
individuals who would otherwise not be driving. Certainly, the
higher-skilled drivers would likely see it that way. But for those
driving around in cars with automatic transmissions, the development of
the automatic transmission would have to be seens as an unalloyed good.
The automatic transmission gave these individuals the freedom to drive
themselves and to do so at less cost than hiring a driver.

The tradeoffs involved in both technologies also have similarities.
Like a program written in a managed language versus one written in C++,
a car with an automatic transmissions tends to be less efficient and
not go as fast as one with a manual transmission. But even though an
automatic transmission simplifies driving, the automatic transimission
itself is much more complicated than the manual transmission.
Similarly, the greater simplicity of programming in a managed language
derives from the greater complexity of the underlying "virtual machine"
or "runtime" that enables the simplification. The fundamental
difference here - whether it be programming languages or car
transmissions - is how best to apply advances in technology (or how
best to apply increases in processor speed).

With C++ the philosophy is simple: every increase in a computer's
processing power goes directly toward making the C++ program run
faster. If C++ built cars, every technological advance would go
directly into the car. Managed languages for their part take a more
nuanced approach and invest some portion the increased processing power
not just to run the program faster but to make programming in that
language easier as well. An automatic transmission is an example of
technological advancements applied to the benefit the driver (even to
the detriment of the car), C++ is an example of the opposite:
advancements benefit only the C++ program directly, and the C++
programmer benefits only indirectly (by having a faster, more efficient
- but no less dangerous or any easier to drive - car than they had
before.

Neither approach is necessarily "wrong" and in fact both make sense in
their own way. A C++ programmer does not need a simpler language in
order to program, just as someone who can drive a manual transmission
does not need an automatic transmission in order to drive. So both the
C++ programmer and the skilled driver are likely to prefer to have a
faster program (or a faster car). Whereas everyone else - those who
lack the skills to program in C++ or to drive with a stick shift -
would prefer that technological advances be used to produce a
programming language they could program in - or car they could actually
drive.

Greg

[kwikius]

Greg wrote:

Moreover, isn't it possible that the complexity is self-perpetuating -
that it is in no one's interest for C++ to be any less complicated than
it is?

I'm sure you don't mean nobodies interest. It is certainly in the
interest of newcomers trying to get to grips with the language. Its
stated somewhere in the C++ committee manifesto that we encourage
libraies designed to make programming easier or something For example
Concepts should in theory provide useful error messages and help
debugging. Of course OTOH when you read the Concepts proposals:

http://www.generic-programming.org/l...es/conceptcpp/

you can also argue that in fact this is just yet another layer of
complexity, and so the only way to make the language simpler is to
write another language, extracting the 'useful' parts of C++.. hence
Java and C#.

At the language level, there is only one way for C++ to go and that is
to become even more complicated as you can't remove features of course.
Eventually it will become so complicated that no one will be able to
write a compiler for it.

A big problem is the libraries. There are often questions on
comp.lang.c++ regarding Graphics and a GUI on the one hand and also
vehement responses on the other that C++ doesnt need a standard GUI or
graphics libraries There seems to be powerful interests at work. It is
surely in some peoples interests that C++ does become ever more
complicated with out any actual usability features (e.g libraries for
common tasks) and more and more newcomers will simply stick with Java
and C# and so on, where they can get the libraies off the nearest
shelf.

Every programming language has a prime life time and every programming
language is eventaully superceded. C++ is no exception to the rule. C++
did it to C after all.

There is no money behind C++ except from companies and maybe many of
their interests lie elsewhere. Its the lack of good libraies that will
kill C++ AFAICS.

And BTW. I am putting my time where my mouth is and currently working
on a C++ GUI library to fill the gap. I'm not making any code public as
babykilling is too simple of a pastime.

regards
Andy Little

[Frederick Gotham]

Greg:

Such a shortfall in the marketplace, the thinking goes, allows C++
programmers to command higher salaries than their work is worth
economically - and they can thank C++'s complexity for the entire
difference.

But that's how all professions work! If just anyone could design space
shuttles, then NASA would pay peanuts.

It may be instructive to draw some parallels between programming
languages and car transmissions. Programming in C++ is a lot like
driving a car with a manual transmission - both require "above average"
skill than the alternative available technology requires: be it
programming in a managed language or driving a car with an automatic
transmission.

I live in Ireland and 99% of cars here are manual transmission. There's a
learning curve to it, sure, but even the most stupid person can learn to
drive manual transmission (and yes I've seen some utterly dumb people drive
a manual transmission car just fine).

Both automatic transmissions and managed languages are viewed as
alternatives that came along only after the original technology had
been developed. The first generation of cars had only manual
transmissions - meaning that only those skilled enough to shift gears
by hand were able to drive a car. Now the question asked about C++
above can also be asked here: was it the case that driving required
such skills or was it simply that the manual transmission made driving
more difficult than it otherwise had to be?

One more thing: You have to consider how comfortable people are with manual
transmission. I've often thought that the most difficult things I've ever
had to learn are walking and talking. There must have been a _massive_
learning curve. Now though, they're second nature to me.

I've been driving manual transmission for about three years now, and it's
second nature to me now. Of course, there was a learning curve at first,
but I got the hang of it.

In my part of the world, people are perfectly happy with manual
transmission. In fact, most people don't like automatic transmission over
here -- if you've driven manual for a while, then you feel as though you've
been deprived of power and control which you once had. Of course though,
there's the ease and simplicity of driving automatic, but, for me, it
doesn't make up for the loss of control.

I myself hate automatic -- give me manual any day of the week.

Similarly, was the development of the automatic transmission a good or
bad development? One could criticize the automatic transmission because
it put a great number of "less skilled" drivers on the road -
individuals who would otherwise not be driving. Certainly, the
higher-skilled drivers would likely see it that way. But for those
driving around in cars with automatic transmissions, the development of
the automatic transmission would have to be seens as an unalloyed good.
The automatic transmission gave these individuals the freedom to drive
themselves and to do so at less cost than hiring a driver.

Ah yes, but if all they know is automatic transmission, then they haven't
experienced the brilliance of driving manual transmission.

For instance, let's say I'm driving fast, but there's a bend up ahead. I
want to get through that bend as quickly as possible. Driving an automatic,
I'll break as I approach the bend, then turn, then accelerate once I'm
through the turn. Driving a manual, I'll drop a gear as I approach the
bend, then the car will slow as I re-engage the engine dragging the revs
up, then I'll turn, then when I'm through the turn, I'll slip the clutch
and acclerate. The automatic method is certainly simpler, but the manual
method is far more efficient.

The tradeoffs involved in both technologies also have similarities.
Like a program written in a managed language versus one written in C++,
a car with an automatic transmissions tends to be less efficient and
not go as fast as one with a manual transmission.

Hear Hear! :)

But even though an automatic transmission simplifies driving, the
automatic transimission itself is much more complicated than the manual
transmission. Similarly, the greater simplicity of programming in a
managed language derives from the greater complexity of the underlying
"virtual machine" or "runtime" that enables the simplification. The
fundamental difference here - whether it be programming languages or car
transmissions - is how best to apply advances in technology (or how best
to apply increases in processor speed).

With C++ the philosophy is simple: every increase in a computer's
processing power goes directly toward making the C++ program run
faster. If C++ built cars, every technological advance would go
directly into the car. Managed languages for their part take a more
nuanced approach and invest some portion the increased processing power
not just to run the program faster but to make programming in that
language easier as well. An automatic transmission is an example of
technological advancements applied to the benefit the driver (even to
the detriment of the car), C++ is an example of the opposite:
advancements benefit only the C++ program directly, and the C++
programmer benefits only indirectly (by having a faster, more efficient
- but no less dangerous or any easier to drive - car than they had
before.

Neither approach is necessarily "wrong" and in fact both make sense in
their own way. A C++ programmer does not need a simpler language in
order to program, just as someone who can drive a manual transmission
does not need an automatic transmission in order to drive. So both the
C++ programmer and the skilled driver are likely to prefer to have a
faster program (or a faster car). Whereas everyone else - those who
lack the skills to program in C++ or to drive with a stick shift -
would prefer that technological advances be used to produce a
programming language they could program in - or car they could actually
drive.

If I couldn't drive, and if I was given the choice of an automatic or a
manual, then I'd stop a think: "Hmm, I could get driving the automatic
straight-away, but then I wouldn't experience the brilliance of manual".
Being an elitist, I go for the superior method from Day 1.

Maybe we can categorise people as follows:

(1) They go for manual transmission from Day 1.
(2) They start off with automatic transmission, then move on to manual
transmission.
(3) They start off with automatic transmission and stay with it their whole
life.

I'm firmly placed in Category 1. Give me C++.

--

Frederick Gotham

[Bo Persson]

Frederick Gotham wrote:

Greg:

>The tradeoffs involved in both technologies also have similarities.
Like a program written in a managed language versus one written in
C++, a car with an automatic transmissions tends to be less
efficient and not go as fast as one with a manual transmission.

Hear Hear! :)

If we leave the cars behind, and instead compare programmers to other
skilled craftsmen, tools like a nailgun or a chainsaw are very productive in
the hands of someone who can handle them. The fact that a newbie doesn't
immediately see how to use them properly, isn't a reason to remove them
from the toolbox of a professional.

Even if the hardware store sells more hammers, that only means that it is
more popular, not that it is the best tool for everyone.
Bo Persson

[blangela]

AP********@gmai l.com wrote:

blangela wrote:

I have been teaching C++ at a local polytechnical school here in
Vancouver, Canada for approximately 8 years.

I think it is important to note that because a C++ course is becoming
smaller in Vancouver, Canada does not mean that the C++ language as a
whole is dying. Who knows, it could be that the University has less
students as a whole. Also, this is an introductory course so people
may be taking other languages to start out and then moving up to C++
later.

I notice that I have not seen a single post in this thread from an
instructor stating that their C++ classes are increasing in size, or
even maintaining their size. I know that I get students from UBC (one
of the 2 large local uniiversites, the other being SFU) who want to
learn C++. They complain that it is no longer available at UBC. Also,
when I first started teaching C++, there were several other local
colleges doing the same. Now I believe only BCIT (where I teach) is
still doing so.

Bob

[Frederick Gotham]

blangela:

I notice that I have not seen a single post in this thread from an
instructor stating that their C++ classes are increasing in size, or
even maintaining their size.

Programming instructors don't tend to be of the highest proficiency.

--

Frederick Gotham

[blangela]

Frederick Gotham wrote:

blangela:

I notice that I have not seen a single post in this thread from an
instructor stating that their C++ classes are increasing in size, or
even maintaining their size.

Programming instructors don't tend to be of the highest proficiency.

--

Frederick Gotham

They are usually able to read and write! That's all it takes to post
on this forum.

[Tony]

"Greg" <gr****@pacbell .netwrote in message
news:11******** *************@n 67g2000cwd.goog legroups.com...

Frederick Gotham wrote:

One could criticize the automatic transmission because
it put a great number of "less skilled" drivers on the road -
individuals who would otherwise not be driving.

Anyone so criticizing is not very smart: the less one has to do during
driving
the better. Your example is akin to saying that those who can drive and
talk and dial on their cellphones are "safer" since they can/are doing more
things at once (unecessary things), which of course is opposite of the
truth. "less skilled", perhaps, but "less skilled in unecessary tedium and
therefore more attentive to the driving task" is more correct.

I think you just took your analogy too far and tried to draw too many
parallels.

Tony

(P.S. Not to even mention that the "4 on the floor" crowd are the hotrodders
on
the street! So if safety is the goal, I'd opt for more of the auto-trans
people on
the roads.)

[Tony]

"Greg" <gr****@pacbell .netwrote in message
news:11******** *************@n 67g2000cwd.goog legroups.com...

Frederick Gotham wrote:

In other words, is programming difficult, or is it just
that C++ makes it so? The fact that individuals are able to program
productively in other languages that lack C++'s complexity does lend
support to the latter point of view.

The second statement above is not necessarilly true: C++ can mean
"programmin g close to the bare metal" which can be more difficult.
The nice thing about C++ is that it let's one program at that level if
they want to. One can just as easily program at a higher level by
using libraries that abstract the underlying complexity. Consider
for example that one can purchase a bullet-proof library of internet
protocols and interact with servers out on the internet without
knowing or having to implement such stuff. Granted, knowing how
it works is usually important, but one doesn't have to be the
architect of such software in order to use it. As a developer (no, I'm
not exclusively that!), I don't like languages that do it all for me and
don't allow me to do it on my own or my way if I want to. My analogy
is the English language. I'll use it as I wish (C++) and not be constrained
by "political correctness" (java?). I'll make my point how _I_ want to.
And if I want to use STL or not is my choice. If I want garbage
collection, I can have it, or not! :)

Your post has a lot of questions/concerns that people who haven't used
C++ I think. I don't think C++ is too complex. I won't think so unless
it starts imposing policies on what I can or cannot do with the language.
Sure all the template stuff is getting "real evolved" (complex), but if
you don't use or need that, it doesn't make requirements of you as the
developer.

Overall, if one "does C++ by the book", yeah, I'd agree, there's a lot
to know. Over time, one discovers what one needs and when and
breaks away from the newbie programmer "everything all the time"
programming "model".

Tony
(For me, switching to a programming language away from C++ or asking
me to consider such, would be like asking me to trade English for another
language (read: I don't have that much time left on the planet and I have
better things to do!))

[Tony]

"Greg" <gr****@pacbell .netwrote in message
news:11******** *************@n 67g2000cwd.goog legroups.com...

Frederick Gotham wrote:

It may be instructive to draw some parallels between programming
languages and car transmissions.

And maybe not! ;)

Tony