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********@gmail.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*********************@n67g2000cwd.googlegro ups.com...

Frederick Gotham wrote:

Doesn't the complexity of C++ really work to the economic
benefit of professional C++ programmers?

And don't forget the tool builders!

Tony

[Tony]

"Greg" <gr****@pacbell.netwrote in message
news:11*********************@n67g2000cwd.googlegro ups.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*********************@n67g2000cwd.googlegro ups.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
"programming 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*********************@n67g2000cwd.googlegro ups.com...

Frederick Gotham wrote:

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

And maybe not! ;)

Tony

[Tony]

"Greg" <gr****@pacbell.netwrote in message
news:11*********************@n67g2000cwd.googlegro ups.com...

Frederick Gotham wrote:

Like a program written in a managed language versus one written in C++,

"managed language"?? You've been watching too much TV! LOL,
"managed language". Even the chosen MS terminology is repulsive.
Using a word that to programmers means "repressed", is pretty stupid
marketing, don't ya think?

Tony

[Tony]

"Greg" <gr****@pacbell.netwrote in message
news:11*********************@n67g2000cwd.googlegro ups.com...

Frederick Gotham wrote:

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.

_I_ think you have used analogy (or euphemism?) in the wrong way. The
only time using such is good is if someone isn't understanding what you
said and you give "a kinda like". But to go deeper into the parallels, which
almost never relate, is perilous.

So, I'd say, if you want talk cars, talk cars. If you wanna talk programming
languages talk those. There is no need to talk around every element via
remote abstraction (and it's even "incorrect" to do so in that is doesn't
help anything).

Tony
(The other time when analogy is wrong is in counter to a preceding analogy
which of course is just USENET analogy war material and has nothing to
do with the original point at all (read: it's a pissing contest!)).

[Phlip]

Tony wrote:

>Like a program written in a managed language versus one written in C++,

"managed language"?? You've been watching too much TV! LOL,
"managed language". Even the chosen MS terminology is repulsive.
Using a word that to programmers means "repressed", is pretty stupid
marketing, don't ya think?

Absolutely. Programmers should be free to write whatever they feel like, and
mantain their own servers, without people around them telling them what to
write and keeping their servers up for them.

--
Phlip
http://www.greencheese.us/ZeekLand <-- NOT a blog!!!

[Tony]

"kwikius" <an**@servocomm.freeserve.co.ukwrote in message
news:11**********************@l39g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...

>
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.

If I was an instructor at a university, I would NOT put templates into a
first semester class. That's an advanced and additional paradigm and
requires choice to "buy into" IMO. I view C++ as a smorgasbord: I'll
eat what I want and like (no sushi for me!).

Actually, even before C++, it would probably be better to take a
general studies course on programming paradigms! Then students can
take C++ as an course tailored to their needs. (No, that won't work,
cuz students by definition can't make that choice). Oh well, something
like that then.

Tony
(Templates are KINDA like sushi, for me)

[Tony]

"kwikius" <an**@servocomm.freeserve.co.ukwrote in message
news:11**********************@l39g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...

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#.

No. No need to extract. Just use what you need, ignore the rest. The other
facilities are there if/when you need/want them. No need to throw the
baby out with the bath water (or whatever the appropriate cliche is...
hey, isn't English HARD?!).

Tony

[Tony]

"kwikius" <an**@servocomm.freeserve.co.ukwrote in message
news:11**********************@l39g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...

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.

But C++ doesn't force you to use those things. The only time you'd be
concerned with the complexity of the entire body of C++ is if you wanted to
produce a conforming implementation (compiler).

Tony

[Tony]

"kwikius" <an**@servocomm.freeserve.co.ukwrote in message
news:11**********************@l39g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...

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.

Someone else please chime in on the availability of C++ libraries. There is
a lot of them available. I think what you are saying is that you don't want
to shop/evaluate/choose from a number of them (?).

Tony

[Tony]

"kwikius" <an**@servocomm.freeserve.co.ukwrote in message
news:11**********************@l39g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...

There is no money behind C++ except from companies and maybe many of
their interests lie elsewhere.

Whatever that means.

Its the lack of good libraies that will kill C++ AFAICS.

Example please. What area is missing "good libraries" and what would,
for you, make it a "good" library? (Perhaps FREE?)

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

I know that name. The Minix newsgroup?

Tony

[Tony]

"kwikius" <an**@servocomm.freeserve.co.ukwrote in message
news:11**********************@l39g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...

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.

That's conjecture. In a previous post, I said that I'm as like to switch
from
C++ as I am from English!

Tony
(Or maybe not EVEN conjecture: facetiousness/pessimistic optimism/or...
the dreaded "manager making decisions on shallow/one-point data! Try
trend analysis instead, it may serve you better.)

[Tony]

"Frederick Gotham" <fg*******@SPAM.comwrote in message
news:Ee*******************@news.indigo.ie...

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.

A loooong time ago, I worked in a place where there were union workers.
That's where I learned the concept "job security". Not that _I_ ascribe to
such strategy (I feel there is an infinite amount of stuff to do after
tackling
what I'm currently working on) but some actually LIKE the "mundane,
repetitive, non-cognitive" work. But to milk it like that is probably
"wrong".

And the only reason I bring up that concept, is because.. well we've all
seen products that are produced just to make money right? Where is
C++ at this juncture along those lines? I dunno, but if "it" ever turns a
corner and starts imposing policy or paradigm, I'll stop using it and
call it proprietary.

Tony

[Tony]

"Frederick Gotham" <fg*******@SPAM.comwrote in message
news:Ee*******************@news.indigo.ie...

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.

Stop this stuff already, puh-leese!

Tony
(An analogy taken too far is like two in the bush. Let me explain... well,
it's
like rock-n-roll guitar "music": it's not really music, it's masturbation!).

[Tony]

<sw****@post.skwrote in message
news:11*********************@f16g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...

Tony wrote:

>Yes, I believe templates are overused and cause a lot of "bad"
programming.
Because, very few people know how to use templates judiciously and
sparingly. I guess that's because the STIL isn't very good at teaching
good
template usage. Many view it as a mechanism as common as the 'for loop'.
I wouldn't teach anyone templates until they've programmed a few years.
(Just a tad facetious to make the point in that last sentence).

Tony

I believe that developers are using templates too few.

Well you're obviously wrong. ;)

The book I suggest to C++ beginners is Accelerated C++.

That's a fine book. I have it in my bookshelf also. It's title though
says "advanced", and I think there it should stay. It's not first course
material or entry-level programmer stuff. I highly recommend that
book though: it really teaches the underlying themes/mechanisms.

I didn't
actually read it

Well it more of a research book than a book to read.

One of the more remarkable facts about the book is that template
functions are introduced in chapter 8 while classes are left for the
chapter 9. I think it's not because they are more important than
classes, but rather because they are easier to learn and they can
simplify your code.

I didn't really like the examples either. The whole student/grades thing
is so boring.

In your OOP orientation you fail to see that you often need helper
functions to simplify the code and improve its readability.

No, that's an assumption you are making (and assumptions are most
often wrong you know).

Bluntly put, if you avoid using templates, you avoid one of the best
features of C++.

Templates are optional. "Use them if you are lazy". ;) (No, I won't
expound on that, so don't ask).

Tony

[Tony]

"blangela" <Bo***********@telus.netwrote in message
news:11**********************@j72g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...

>
AP********@gmail.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.

Well note too that the bookstores are dumbing down the book selection to
commercial product manuals rather than computer science stuff. Today's
generation of "programmers" are closer to assembly line workers than
their predecessors.

Tony

[Tony]

"Frederick Gotham" <fg*******@SPAM.comwrote in message
news:Kv*******************@news.indigo.ie...

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.

Those who can DO, those who can't TEACH?

Tony

[kwikius]

Tony wrote:

"kwikius" <an**@servocomm.freeserve.co.ukwrote in message
news:11**********************@l39g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...

There is no money behind C++ except from companies and maybe many of
their interests lie elsewhere.

Whatever that means.

Its the lack of good libraies that will kill C++ AFAICS.

Example please. What area is missing "good libraries" and what would,
for you, make it a "good" library? (Perhaps FREE?)

"Standard". GUI, graphics, dlls, IPC, concurrency.
regards
Andy Little

[Phlip]

Tony wrote:

Stop this stuff already, puh-leese!

Tony, you are being successfully trolled. Let it have the last word.

--
Phlip
http://www.greencheese.us/ZeekLand <-- NOT a blog!!!

[kwikius]

Tony wrote:

"kwikius" <an**@servocomm.freeserve.co.ukwrote in message
news:11**********************@l39g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...

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.

Someone else please chime in on the availability of C++ libraries. There is
a lot of them available. I think what you are saying is that you don't want
to shop/evaluate/choose from a number of them (?).

I don't and more to the point beginners to the language don't or rather
won't. They will and do already use another language where those
libraries are available. Supermarkets are more successful than
specialists. Why, because people havent got the time to go around all
the specialist shops individually. Most things people want in a
supermarket are similar and 'good enough', and there is nothing
stopping them going to a speciailist if they wish. Further in the
supermarket everything is compatible "generic" (e.g barcodes), feedback
on one product can be used for others. cross fertilisation occurs
formally and informally The supermarket is also a meeting place for
people who want different products, so you can usually get advice from
someone in there as to whether some product is good or not.

Go ask in the specialist shop and their particular product is bound to
be marvellous of course.

regards
Andy Little

[blangela]

Tony wrote:

"blangela" <Bo***********@telus.netwrote in message
news:11**********************@j72g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...

AP********@gmail.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.

Well note too that the bookstores are dumbing down the book selection to
commercial product manuals rather than computer science stuff. Today's
generation of "programmers" are closer to assembly line workers than
their predecessors.

Tony

I agree with you on this point. I know of a Java instructor at my
school who feels it is a waste of time to teach students data
structures or sorting algorthms -- Java provides different container
classes and sorting algorthms to select from, so why should the student
need to learn these topics. I disagree. I feel that there is still
room for the "science" in "computer science".

[blangela]

Tony wrote:

"Frederick Gotham" <fg*******@SPAM.comwrote in message
news:Kv*******************@news.indigo.ie...

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.

Those who can DO, those who can't TEACH?

Tony

Tell that to Einstein. I read somewhere that he taught for many years.

[Chris Thomasson]

"blangela" <Bo***********@telus.netwrote in message
news:11**********************@h54g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...

>
Tony wrote:

>"blangela" <Bo***********@telus.netwrote in message
news:11**********************@j72g2000cwa.googleg roups.com...

>
AP********@gmail.com wrote:
blangela wrote:
I have been teaching C++ at a local polytechnical school here in
Vancouver, Canada for approximately 8 years.

[...]

>Well note too that the bookstores are dumbing down the book selection to
commercial product manuals rather than computer science stuff. Today's
generation of "programmers" are closer to assembly line workers than
their predecessors.

Tony

I agree with you on this point. I know of a Java instructor at my
school who feels it is a waste of time to teach students data
structures or sorting algorthms -- Java provides different container
classes and sorting algorthms to select from, so why should the student
need to learn these topics. I disagree. I feel that there is still
room for the "science" in "computer science".

I completely disagree with the Java instructor as well. Data-structures and
sorting algorithms' are fundamental! Its sad that the current trend in
computer science seems to be aimed at very high-level languages which
abstract fundamental methods and techniques away to a dangerous point. It
can lead to a scenario in which a Java programmer might not now how to
create or even sort a linked list. The Java programmer might not even now
how to create a dynamic array from scratch... I feel your pain!

[Ian Collins]

Chris Thomasson wrote:

"blangela" <Bo***********@telus.netwrote in message
news:11**********************@h54g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...

>>Tony wrote:

>>>Well note too that the bookstores are dumbing down the book selection to
commercial product manuals rather than computer science stuff. Today's
generation of "programmers" are closer to assembly line workers than
their predecessors.

Tony

I agree with you on this point. I know of a Java instructor at my
school who feels it is a waste of time to teach students data
structures or sorting algorthms -- Java provides different container
classes and sorting algorthms to select from, so why should the student
need to learn these topics. I disagree. I feel that there is still
room for the "science" in "computer science".

I completely disagree with the Java instructor as well. Data-structures and
sorting algorithms' are fundamental! Its sad that the current trend in
computer science seems to be aimed at very high-level languages which
abstract fundamental methods and techniques away to a dangerous point. It
can lead to a scenario in which a Java programmer might not now how to
create or even sort a linked list. The Java programmer might not even now
how to create a dynamic array from scratch... I feel your pain!

How many new grads can build a system in asembly language?

As an field grows, one either has to specialise in a niche, or become a
generalist.

If they haven't done so already, CS degrees will follow that path.

--
Ian Collins.

[Earl Purple]

gn wrote:

Earl Purple schrieb:

Well - The problem here is that there is one java against many different C++ compilers.

Java 5 has some significant changes in it.

Normally one should think that if you are
programming C++ conform to the standard (and of course capsulating (I
still don't know the right word here in english) system functions) your
programs should compile at every platform where you have a C++
compiler. In reality thats not the case because many compilers are not
conform with the standard, especially concerning templates.

Well we are dealing with 3 situations:

- Open-source libraries. They need to build in your compiler but once
you've built it you can link it with your code easily. I much prefer
using open-source libraries. The only issue is when they're written in
macros because of all the different compilers they might be dealing
with, and particularly if they require you to set some define just to
have it compile standard C++. The situation should be that those who do
not have standard-complliant compilers should be the ones who have to
define something.

- Pre-built libraries. Now you have to get the binaries from the
vendor, and usually there are a certain number of header files but they
are basic enough to work for any compiler. The clash now comes with
linking against run-time libraries.

- Hybrids which could have the worst of both worlds, i.e. you need
compiler-specific defines and have to build with the correct runtime
library. Visibroker is the actual one I had problems with.

Additionally people who are using things like visual C++ or Borland C++
Builder are often not aware of using non standard libraries. You are
also right with the different GNU versions where I had some problems
with my template syntax.

It is incredible how many are still using VC6. Problem is of course, a
lot of their code would break on VC7/8 because it's full of "wrong" C++
that VC6 would compile.

The same is true for any modern C++ compiler, although GNU usually
allows specific switches for backward compatibility.

But all this is not a problem of C++, but of the compiler developers
(let's see what the next standard brings and how fast they are in
implementing it to all compilers). There are also many other things
that I am missing in current compilers (e.g. return value optimization
for recursive functions). I really think that C++ will become much
faster in the future because there are many such things to optimize
that is to complicated for todays compilers.

Runtime performance is not the main issue. Java has improved in that it
has improved its runtime performance to be adequate enough. Whether it
matches C++ is not always relevant, as long as it is adequate for the
task in hand. (In some cases Java can match C++ perfectly well or even
out-perform it).

The big issue here seems to be portability. C++ badly lacks a standard
runtime library in the way C has one, and a standard demangler so that
you can link GNU libraries with VC8 or Solaris ones on their specific
platforms without requiring a "C" interface.

In addition, I still feel that the reluctance of C++ to have a standard
for a network, threads, file-system, graphics device etc is something
serious lacking as part of its portability, even if there are 3rd party
libraries for many of these things, even open-source ones.

In the end everything depends on the specific tasks. For my field of
work (computational chemistry) it's simply no question to use anythingh
else than C++ or Fortran, because those quantum chemical calculations
are still to slow even on huge clusters and even for small molecules. I
also think for bigger projects in the software companies it should be
no problem to have C++ and java programmers working on the same
project. It's no problem if you have a good design.

For this there is always JNI which allows Java to interact with C. The
"D" programming language can also interact with C libraries. Once again
C++ is left out of the equation.

[Earl Purple]

Tony wrote:

>
If I was an instructor at a university, I would NOT put templates into a
first semester class. That's an advanced and additional paradigm and
requires choice to "buy into" IMO. I view C++ as a smorgasbord: I'll
eat what I want and like (no sushi for me!).

I would. Collections would be one of the first subjects I would teach.

One of the least important features of C++ is cin. I do not have a
single cin in any of my C++ production code. Yet it seems to be the
first thing programmers seem to learn.

Actually, even before C++, it would probably be better to take a
general studies course on programming paradigms! Then students can
take C++ as an course tailored to their needs. (No, that won't work,
cuz students by definition can't make that choice). Oh well, something
like that then.

Surely paradigms though must include handling collections.

[Earl Purple]

Greg wrote:

>
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.
Greg

A better analogy would be between building a car in Java or building
one in C++.

In Java, you would get all the components and put them together,
including the wheels.

In C++ though there is no standard for a wheel because there are some
vehicles, i.e .boats, don't have wheels so there is no need for a
standard. So you have to "reinvent the wheel" or fit one from a 3rd
party manufacturer, the only problem with that being that getting their
wheels to fit your vehicle is not always an simple matter, at least not
as straightforward as it is to fitting a standard one, because the
diagnostics of the wheels are such that they have side effects on the
rest of the manufacture of your car.

[Earl Purple]

sw****@post.sk wrote:

I believe that developers are using templates too few.

The book I suggest to C++ beginners is Accelerated C++. I didn't
actually read it because by the time I found out about it I didn't need
it anymore. But I had a quick look through it to evaluate whether it's
good for my less experienced [ex]colleagues.

Unfortunately what looks great teaching material by those who know the
language well does not always prove to be the case. You have to try it
out on students and see how well they pick it all up.

And I think that Bob
Langelaan could use it to improve the course too, following the
suggestion of Alf P. Steinbach to start with standard library classes.

One of the more remarkable facts about the book is that template
functions are introduced in chapter 8 while classes are left for the
chapter 9. I think it's not because they are more important than
classes, but rather because they are easier to learn and they can
simplify your code.

What do they teach in chapters 1-7? Writing console apps with a lot of
cin statements?

Bluntly put, if you avoid using templates, you avoid one of the best
features of C++. You can work around that to some degree using
inheritance and virtual function overriding, but this introduces
unwanted dependencies, some (usually unimportant) performance
hit and you also lose some advantages of the static typing in the
process.

That is true but templates can also be used in the wrong place.
Template classes are often written where only a small proportion has
"dependent" code (i.e. code dependent on the template type). Such a
template should often be refactored to have a non-template handle the
non-dependent code.

[Earl Purple]

blangela wrote:

>
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.

Ah, they are getting cleverer at not writing monolithic classes
anymore. Better refactoring

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.

Course in Java: Here is a computer. We will learn to write applications
that use all the modern features: GUI, hey we can run even in a
browser. Networking - no problem. And we can process concurrently...
Java is very useful because a lot of companies are writing brand new
software in it.

Course in C++: Here is a computer. Now let's get a DOS shell up and
write a console app. And even when you ask the user to type in a
number, there is no method to intercept the key as the user hits it, so
if the user types in "Blah" you have to go back and say "sorry that's
not a number". If we're lucky we might even write our source with the
vi editor where you have to carefully switch between modes because
there's no such thing as Ctrl or Alt so characters mean different
things at different times. C++ is very useful because there's lots of
legacy code out there written in it, usually very badly, and you can
get a job maintaining it.

Now if you are student which do you choose?

On the subject of maintaining a legacy app, yes it makes economic sense
to do so rather than go for the rewrite. You could say the same for the
language itself. Better to maintain it and even add some new features
rather than go back and write a new one from scratch which is simply
much better.

Now everyone in the C++ market seems to be claiming that the language
is used for device drivers or the "embedded" world. Now where is the
university course saying "here is a robot, now we are going to program
some C++ into its microchip". Might just be the way to make it a bit
more exciting. People would like to learn how to program robots. They
look modern. Instead of writing "hello world" and some horrible console
app with cin, we could program it to make us a cup of tea.

[Earl Purple]

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.

They should be excellent teachers. The best programmers are usually out
there programming in it, not teaching it. But the best programmers
aren't necessarily good teachers either.

[Alf P. Steinbach]

* Earl Purple:

blangela wrote:

>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.

Ah, they are getting cleverer at not writing monolithic classes
anymore. Better refactoring

> 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.

Course in Java: Here is a computer. We will learn to write applications
that use all the modern features: GUI, hey we can run even in a
browser. Networking - no problem. And we can process concurrently...
Java is very useful because a lot of companies are writing brand new
software in it.

Course in C++: Here is a computer. Now let's get a DOS shell up and
write a console app. And even when you ask the user to type in a
number, there is no method to intercept the key as the user hits it, so
if the user types in "Blah" you have to go back and say "sorry that's
not a number". If we're lucky we might even write our source with the
vi editor where you have to carefully switch between modes because
there's no such thing as Ctrl or Alt so characters mean different
things at different times. C++ is very useful because there's lots of
legacy code out there written in it, usually very badly, and you can
get a job maintaining it.

Now if you are student which do you choose?

On the subject of maintaining a legacy app, yes it makes economic sense
to do so rather than go for the rewrite. You could say the same for the
language itself. Better to maintain it and even add some new features
rather than go back and write a new one from scratch which is simply
much better.

Now everyone in the C++ market seems to be claiming that the language
is used for device drivers or the "embedded" world. Now where is the
university course saying "here is a robot, now we are going to program
some C++ into its microchip". Might just be the way to make it a bit
more exciting. People would like to learn how to program robots. They
look modern. Instead of writing "hello world" and some horrible console
app with cin, we could program it to make us a cup of tea.

Except -- for robots specialized control languages are better than
C++. And in the embedded world one uses restricted dialects of C++ that
aren't really C++. For example, when you remove exceptions from the
language you also remove the whole point of constructors, and what's
left isn't much more than a simple syntactical device (writing p->foo()
rather than p->vt->foo( p ) or CALL( p, foo, () )).

If I were to teach C++ today (I did many years ago) I'd focus on Windows
applications.

E.g., I imagine it's slightly difficult to do a Windows system tray icon
in Java, unless someone has made a C++ library for that for Java.

I think Windows applications comprise the last bastion of C++.

And it's crumbling: most new Windows applications will be .NET based,
and then better written in C#. That leaves C++ as a "glue" language,
e.g. writing those Java platform libraries. Oh well.

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

[Mirek Fidler]

Java references (e.g., strong thread-safe reference counting) in C++? No

problem:

http://appcore.home.comcast.net/vzoom/refcount/
This can be used as an alternative to Boost shared_ptr, which is only basic
thread-safe....

You got me interested. I briefly visited the site, but missed any
description on how to do that.

Can you point me in the right direction? (I guess we both understand
that using atomic operations to increment/decrement reference count is
far from lock free ;)

Mirek

[Chris Thomasson]

"Earl Purple" <ea********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@j44g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...

>
blangela wrote:

>>
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.

Ah, they are getting cleverer at not writing monolithic classes
anymore. Better refactoring

> 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.

Course in Java: [...]

And we can process concurrently...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Java memory model is so damn strict that it makes it impossible to create
any high-end synchronization algorithms. Period. But then, does the average
Java programmer even know this fact? I bet 99% do not. Simple example of how
learning Java first can, and will, burn you:
Java teacher: Now we are going to learn about arrays. Java has this class
you see...
Student: How does Java actually implement that class?
Java teacher: I don't know. But, it works so lets start learning!
Student: What a fuc#king rip off!

>
Course in C++:

[...]

C++ is very useful because

I can use it with Assembly Language to create a high-end synchronization
algorithms. I can use to create a full blown Java VM... I can use C++ to
prototype virtually anything for that matter. Can't use Java for any of
that.

there's lots of
legacy code out there written in it, usually very badly, and you can
get a job maintaining it.

I hope you don't think that the reason C++ is still around is because of
legacy code?

Now if you are student which do you choose?

C++ for sure! You should learn the fundamentals before you choose to
sacrifice yourself to very high-level language that is governed under a
"private" standard.

[Chris Thomasson]

Java teacher: Now we are going to learn about arrays. Java has this class

you see...
Student: How does Java actually implement that class?
Java teacher: I don't know. But, it works so lets start learning!
Student: What a fuc#king rip off!

Smart-Ass-C++-Student:

I know how they implemented the array class... They used C/C++ dip shit!!
lol...
;^)

[Mirek Fidler]

Phlip wrote:

loufoque wrote:

Refcounting is not the same as a GC.

In terms of language advocacy, C++ gives you the tools to build whatever
quasi-GC system you want (including a true GC). It doesn't bend you over and

Uh, no not really. Best you can hope for AFAIK is some sort of
conservative GC.

Mirek

[Kai-Uwe Bux]

Chris Thomasson wrote:

"Earl Purple" <ea********@gmail.comwrote in message

[snip]

>Course in Java: [...]

>And we can process concurrently...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Java memory model is so damn strict that it makes it impossible to create
any high-end synchronization algorithms. Period. But then, does the
average Java programmer even know this fact? I bet 99% do not. Simple
example of how learning Java first can, and will, burn you:
Java teacher: Now we are going to learn about arrays. Java has this class
you see...
Student: How does Java actually implement that class?
Java teacher: I don't know. But, it works so lets start learning!
Student: What a fuc#king rip off!

C++ teacher: Now we are going to learn about variable length arrays. C++ has
for instance the deque<template, you see ...

Student: How does C++ actually implement that template?

C++ teacher: That is implementation defined according to the standard. All I
can tell you for sure are the following guaranteed complexity bounds...

Weak Student: What the heck, who cares about -- what did you call way too
complex bounds?

Strong Student: Cool, but (a) that does not answer my question and (b) why
are there no bounds on space?

>>
Course in C++:

[...]

>C++ is very useful because

I can use it with Assembly Language to create a high-end synchronization
algorithms. I can use to create a full blown Java VM... I can use C++ to
prototype virtually anything for that matter. Can't use Java for any of
that.

I would like to see the C++ course completion of which will enable you to
create a full blown Java VM. Do you seriously suggest that, say, as a term
paper?

>

>there's lots of
legacy code out there written in it, usually very badly, and you can
get a job maintaining it.

I hope you don't think that the reason C++ is still around is because of
legacy code?

>Now if you are student which do you choose?

C++ for sure! You should learn the fundamentals before you choose to
sacrifice yourself to very high-level language that is governed under a
"private" standard.

And you should learn to make screws from blocks of metal before you learn to
assemble chairs your order online.
Best

Kai-Uwe Bux

[Earl Purple]

Chris Thomasson wrote:

>

there's lots of
legacy code out there written in it, usually very badly, and you can
get a job maintaining it.

I hope you don't think that the reason C++ is still around is because of
legacy code?

Of course it is. C++ beat all the other OO languages of its generation
because it supported all the company's existing C source. Read
Stroustrup's pages about the history of the language.

Now if you are student which do you choose?

C++ for sure! You should learn the fundamentals before you choose to
sacrifice yourself to very high-level language that is governed under a
"private" standard.

And then you'd need to learn assembly too plus deep amounts of
electronics to know how all the hardware works.

What if, however, you are the typical student for whom university is
really only the unfortunately necessary and costly step between school
and getting a job, and that your primary aim of university is to be
trained to get a job afterwards, especially since you'll probably have
a big loan to pay off.

And it's the "private standard" that has allowed them to advance Java
to where it is, introducing generics (really templates) in the latest
standard, plus the equivalent of a foreach which looks a lot cleaner
than the 3 C++ options of having to either
1. write a loop
2. write a functor
3. try to create a functor on the spot with some horrible looking
syntax, involving binds, addresses of member functions and possibly
some funny looking _1 symbol.

[Phlip]

Mirek Fidler wrote:

Phlip wrote:

>loufoque wrote:

Refcounting is not the same as a GC.

>In terms of language advocacy, C++ gives you the tools to build whatever
quasi-GC system you want (including a true GC). It doesn't bend you over
and

Uh, no not really. Best you can hope for AFAIK is some sort of
conservative GC.

You are responding to someone who said "C++ gives you the tools to build any
kind of GC system imaginable".

--
Phlip
http://www.greencheese.us/ZeekLand <-- NOT a blog!!!

[Mirek Fidler]

Phlip wrote:

Mirek Fidler wrote:

Phlip wrote:

loufoque wrote:

Refcounting is not the same as a GC.

In terms of language advocacy, C++ gives you the tools to build whatever
quasi-GC system you want (including a true GC). It doesn't bend you over
and

Uh, no not really. Best you can hope for AFAIK is some sort of
conservative GC.

You are responding to someone who said "C++ gives you the tools to build any
kind of GC system imaginable".

Ah, you mean building GC in C++ for Java? Or what?

Actually, I got impression that you suggest that you can build true GC
a library solution for C++. I argue that you cannot (at least not
without special C++ compiler, but that would be equal to adding GC to
language definition).

Mirek

[Chris Thomasson]

"Mirek Fidler" <cx*@ntllib.orgwrote in message
news:11*********************@j44g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...

>Java references (e.g., strong thread-safe reference counting) in C++? No
problem:

http://appcore.home.comcast.net/vzoom/refcount/
This can be used as an alternative to Boost shared_ptr, which is only
basic
thread-safe....

You got me interested. I briefly visited the site, but missed any
description on how to do that.

Well, you can't use it as a 100% drop in replacement right now because the
interface is a little different. However, it does provides two smart
pointers:
ptr::global - used for strong atomic references
ptr::local - used for basic atomic references
Here is some brief info on their semantics:

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp....t.devel/149813

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp....t.devel/149818
You can start to experiment and tinker around when them now. However, the
library is in pre-alpha status... I would not use it for production code
yet. Experiments fine, production, wait for version 1 to come out... Oh
crap, I just noticed that I am going to be a little late for a meeting!
Damn, I need a couple of pots of coffee!

Can you point me in the right direction?

I have no time to say what I want to say right now, so here are some quick
links to relevant information:

http://search.gmane.org/?query=&auth...s+thmasson---A
(deeper descriptions of how my refcount algorithm works)
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....c94118046142e8
(lock-free patents...)
http://atomic-ptr-plus.sourceforge.net/
(Joe Seighs excellent work)
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....8717d3bcdedfe9
(initial idea; pseudo-code)
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....21a151d3916592
(mostly lock-free...)
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....22ef08ae26e2f3
(async-signal-safe aspects of my algorithm)
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....7b1867c19e6288
(async-signal...)
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....e468f341a33ee2
(adding more async-signal-safety characteristics'...)
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....a46f3ef24b786a
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....63f874241bcaf4
(possible improvements...)

Other that that... When I get back from the meeting, we should include c.p.t
in this conversation.
Well, got to go!

[Noah Roberts]

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++.

No. Programming requires a certain thinking type, that is all. There
are plenty of brilliant people out there that can't program and will
never be able to program beyond the very basics.

>
For the less bright among us, there's Java.

Actually, for the less bright among us there's language bigotry.

Java programmers are not stupid. If you want to call people stupid you
should have a look at people that purposfully use the least productive
and secure components of a language when not necissary. Those that do
not make use of the tools at their disposal to make themselves more
productive and better programmers.

[Earl Purple]

Alf P. Steinbach wrote:

>
Except -- for robots specialized control languages are better than
C++. And in the embedded world one uses restricted dialects of C++ that
aren't really C++. For example, when you remove exceptions from the
language you also remove the whole point of constructors, and what's
left isn't much more than a simple syntactical device (writing p->foo()
rather than p->vt->foo( p ) or CALL( p, foo, () )).

The ideal solution in my opinion is a "one-exception-type" exception.
That would probably reduce a lot of the overhead of exceptions. You can
then examine the exception if you want to do different things based on
what the error was.

If I were to teach C++ today (I did many years ago) I'd focus on Windows
applications.

E.g., I imagine it's slightly difficult to do a Windows system tray icon
in Java, unless someone has made a C++ library for that for Java.

I think Windows applications comprise the last bastion of C++.

And it's crumbling: most new Windows applications will be .NET based,
and then better written in C#. That leaves C++ as a "glue" language,
e.g. writing those Java platform libraries. Oh well.

So you are admitting that C++ is effectively dying as an application
programming language but will probably remain for the low-level systems
program for a non-embedded platform.