My advice on implementing stuff in C: [LWN.net]

My advice on implementing stuff in C:

Posted Oct 15, 2010 17:28 UTC (Fri) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
In reply to: My advice on implementing stuff in C: by HelloWorld
Parent article: Russell: On C Library Implementation

There are very good reasons for these rules, and you probably wouldn't be complaining if you had understood them.

I understand the rules perfectly. They came about because Stroustrup et. al. threw everything + the kitchen sink into C++. Then when the dust settled, they discovered all kinds of corner-cases that needed clarification, or weird combinations that just don't work so need to be forbidden, or silly rules that came about because of how C++ compilers must be implemented.

I've programmed since 1982 (professionally since 1990) and used C and C++ extensively. While it's obvious that C was designed carefully and thoughtfully and the C standardization committees have done a stellar job, it's also obvious that C++ was a "yeah, throw in that feature!" design followed by "Oh crap... now we have to document the weird corner-cases."

to post comments

My advice on implementing stuff in C:

Posted Oct 15, 2010 18:25 UTC (Fri) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129) [Link] (17 responses)

Oh, another victim of the C hacker syndrome. Please get well soon :)

My advice on implementing stuff in C:

Posted Oct 15, 2010 21:33 UTC (Fri) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] (1 responses)

What did I write (in grandparent to this comment) that isn't factual?

My advice on implementing stuff in C:

Posted Oct 15, 2010 22:36 UTC (Fri) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129) [Link]

Err, like, everything? Aside from the statement that you've been programming since 1982, all of what you've written is not a fact but your personal opinion, and it's also so vague that it's basically impossible to disprove it, making any discussion pointless. The good thing is that I don't need to convince you, which is why this comment ends here :)

My advice on implementing stuff in C:

Posted Oct 15, 2010 23:21 UTC (Fri) by chad.netzer (subscriber, #4257) [Link] (9 responses)

Why does the author of this essay not sign his name to it? It took some hunting to find the presumed author.

In any case, C++ has had 25 years to convince the "C hackers" that it is the logical and valid step up from C. It should stand on its own merits, and not need a bunch of evangelists *still* trying to convince people from year to year. It isn't just stubborness; even after all this time, there are many valid reasons not to use it. I mean, if you set out to design a language from scratch, today, who in their right mind would come up with C++?

It would be much more convincing (IMO) to simply tell the C hackers to skip C++, and start using one of the languages that has learned the lessons of C++, and is trying to replace it. And in fact, many organizations have been essentially doing that exact thing throughout the lifetime of C++. It's quite telling...

My advice on implementing stuff in C:

Posted Oct 15, 2010 23:34 UTC (Fri) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (8 responses)

what language 'learned the lessons of C++' and is so clearly superior?

the fact that C++ is still being used so heavily (in spite of people saying for 25 years that it is junked and should be skipped and people instead use a 'real' language ;-) makes me believe that all of these next-generation languages are missing something.

companies keep trying to ignore C++, but they aren't succeeding so spectacularly that C++ is dieing away.

My advice on implementing stuff in C:

Posted Oct 16, 2010 1:25 UTC (Sat) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] (6 responses)

what language 'learned the lessons of C++' and is so clearly superior?

C++ is "good enough" for many purposes, and it's certainly possible to write decent C++. The problem is that you have to restrict yourself to a subset of the language and have a very disciplined programming team with strict style guidelines.

Once you start going mad with esoteric C++ features (or even not-so-esoteric ones like templates), you code can become unreadable and unmaintainable.

Too bad Objective-C didn't catch on more than C++. I think it is a much better language if your goal is "C with objects".

My advice on implementing stuff in C:

Posted Oct 16, 2010 10:59 UTC (Sat) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link]

> C++ is "good enough" for many purposes, and it's certainly possible to write decent C++. The problem is that you have to restrict yourself to a subset of the language and have a very disciplined programming team with strict style guidelines.

and the result of such discipline is called... Java.

OK, maybe too much discipline :-)

My advice on implementing stuff in C:

Posted Oct 16, 2010 13:15 UTC (Sat) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129) [Link] (3 responses)

If your code is unmaintainable, it's usually not because of language features, but because you have misused a language feature or you have chosen the wrong one for the problem.

My advice on implementing stuff in C:

Posted Oct 16, 2010 14:31 UTC (Sat) by Baylink (guest, #755) [Link]

And I believe that the assertion being made here by the anti-C++ faction is that *the fundamental design of the language and it's library/template environment is such* that this is much much harder than seems warranted, given the competition.

My advice on implementing stuff in C:

Posted Oct 16, 2010 19:50 UTC (Sat) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] (1 responses)

If your code is unmaintainable, it's usually not because of language features, but because you have misused a language feature or you have chosen the wrong one for the problem.

What I assert is that there are many dangerous features in C++ that are easy to misuse. This is what I mean when I write that C++ is a horrible language; there are much better-designed languages that take a lot more effort to misuse. :) (C, Tcl, Lisp spring to mind immediately...)

My advice on implementing stuff in C:

Posted Oct 19, 2010 10:23 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

Tcl and Lisp are so flexible that they can be very easy to misuse in the wrong hands. This is mostly because of the very feature that gives them expressivity: the macro system (for Lisp) or ability to redefine every word in the language (for Tcl and for that matter Forth).

Subsets of C++

Posted Oct 17, 2010 4:53 UTC (Sun) by CChittleborough (subscriber, #60775) [Link]

dskoll is right: if you select an appropriate subset of C++, you can use it to write perfectly good code, even very large systems. Several teams have done this.

The problem is that the other teams using C++ are very unlikely to be using the same subset. Worse still, the team that wrote a library that your team would like to use probably selected a different subset than your team ...

My advice on implementing stuff in C:

Posted Oct 16, 2010 3:24 UTC (Sat) by chad.netzer (subscriber, #4257) [Link]

Note that the context is convincing diehard "C hackers", not necessarily C++ programmers, to migrate. Although, for the latter case, certainly Java is an example of a language directly intended to replace many of C++'s use cases, and both it and C# have been quite successful overall. C++ obviously has a long road ahead of it, and some exciting changes are on the horizon.

That said, of the languages meant to be "a better C++ for C hackers", several have been mentioned, and I don't claim any of will ever be "superior", in the sense of mindshare, marketshare, etc. Just that convincing those C hackers who have repeatedly objected to C++ (pardon the pun), is perhaps a fruitless battle. Personally, I'd kind of like "ooc" to become popular

As for the "lessons learned", its no surprise that many of the newer languages deliberately make an effort to ease the burden of implemention, speed of compilation, etc. Waiting for non-buggy implementations of C++'s newer features over the years left quite an impression on people

Ignorance at work

Posted Oct 16, 2010 11:07 UTC (Sat) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link] (3 responses)

Oh, another victim of the C hacker syndrome.

I have read until the 5th line:

"[Linus'] opposition to any programming paradigms and concepts related to those paradigms which are not possible or very awkward to use in C. These include things like object-oriented design, abstraction, etc."

... which immediately helped me stop wasting my time.

Ignorance at work

Posted Oct 19, 2010 10:32 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (2 responses)

There's no object-oriented design or abstraction evident in the kernel until you look really deep into it, like the directory structure or the header files.

(oops)

Ignorance at work

Posted Oct 25, 2010 1:00 UTC (Mon) by vonbrand (guest, #4458) [Link] (1 responses)

Au contraire, it is very evident each time you take a peek a device drivers, filesystems, ...

It is in operating systems (and then simulation) where OOP was first used...

Ignorance at work

Posted Oct 25, 2010 6:54 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

Exactly my point. :)

My advice on implementing stuff in C:

Posted Oct 16, 2010 14:28 UTC (Sat) by Baylink (guest, #755) [Link]

Yes, I've read the first third of that page, and the C++ partisan is clearly purposefully failing to interpret Linus' words in a reasonable context, so as to have something to attack.

Nope, sorry.