Re: C++... is it dying?
On Jul 21, 4:40 am, "Daniel T." <danie...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Juha Nieminen <nos...@thanks.invalid> wrote:
puzzlecracker wrote:
[...]
If I had to code in C, which has no data containers nor
algorithms whatsoever (besides the horrible qsort), that
would be a real nightmare.
Nonsense. You would do the same thing every programming house
did before the STL came along, develop your own set of
containers and algorithms and use them. Then when someone
asked why you don't switch from what you know to this "new
improved" library, you would look at all the code you already
have written, all the evidence that your containers work and
work well, and ask "why bother?"
To which you answer: because it's standard. I've used many
different pre-standard libraries, most of them better designed
than the STL (but some real desasters in design, too). But none
of them as well known as the STL: I'm concerned with my code
being easily understood not only by the veterans who've worked
at the company for years, but by the new kids we hire next week.
For most purposes, the my GB_ArrayOf, OSE's OTC_Vector and the
standard's std::vector will work equally well, but the new hire
will already know std::vector, but not GB_ArrayOf or OTC_Vector.
(Not to mention that a lot of places where I've worked bought in
libraries like the Booch toolkit, which are no longer
supported.)
A lot of C++ engines, frameworks and libraries were developed
long before STL burst on the scene and they solved all the
problems STL solves. Why should they dump all that hard work,
that works?
So that they can interface with other engines, frameworks and
libraries. And so that there is one less thing for new hires to
learn.
Programming languages have a nasty habit of starting life
clean and well designed but with a few quirks and lacking in
some way, then they grow to become bloated beasts that have
way more than they need and even more quirks because of the
requirement that they are backwards compatible. Eventually
they die under their own weight. Either that, or the language
stagnates and eventually becomes minor niche.
C++ seems to be in the unenviable position of officially
bloating while practically stagnating.
I don't follow you here. Java came along, and pretended to
replace C++, and now it's more or less relegated to a few (very
big) niches, where as C++ continues to be widely used in a large
number of domains. Ditto a few other languages. C++ has a
number of flaws, but it is flexible, and can be adapted to meet
just about any requirements.
It is complex. For two reasons: the first is that it is used to
solve complex problems: if the complexity wasn't in the
language, it would have to be in your user code. The second is
that it derives from C, and there are a number of things in C
which are poorly designed and don't scale (e.g. the declaration
syntax). But without this relationship to C, it's probable that
the language would have followed the tracks of Modula-3: an
excellent language that just never caught on.
--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:james.kanze@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orient=E9e objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place S=E9mard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'=C9cole, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34