• 0 Posts
  • 13 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 18th, 2023

help-circle


  • I definitely agree on the last point. Personally I like languages where I can get the compiler to check a lot more of my reasoning, but I still want to be able to use all the memory management techniques that people use in C.

    I remember Jonathan Blow did a fairly rambling stream of consciousness talk on his criticisms of Rust, and it was largely written off as “old man yells at clouds”, but I tried to make sense of what he was saying and eventually realised he had a lot of good points.

    I think it was this one: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4t1K66dMhWk


  • That’s what std::move does, and you’re right that it’s quite an ugly hack to deal with C++ legacy mistakes that C doesn’t have.

    I say move semantics to refer to the broader concept, which exists to make manual memory management safer and easier to get right. It’s also a core feature of Rust.

    Also I’m talking about parametric polymorphism, not subtype polymorphism. So I mean things like lists, queues and maps which can be specialised for the element type. That’s what I can’t imagine living without.


  • I would have said the same thing a few years ago, but after writing C++ professionally for a while I have to grudgingly admit that most of the new features are very useful for writing simpler code.

    A few are still infuriating though, and I still consider the language an abomination. It has too many awful legacy problems that can never be fixed.


  • porgamrer@programming.devtoProgrammer Humor@programming.devC++
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    21 days ago

    The only conceivable way to avoid pointers in C is by using indices into arrays, which have the exact same set of problems that pointers do because array indexing and pointer dereferencing are the same thing. If anything array indexing is slightly worse, because the index doesn’t carry a type.

    Also you’re ignoring a whole host of other problems in C. Most notably unions.

    People say that “you only need to learn pointers”, but that’s not a real thing you can do. It’s like saying it’s easy to write correct brainfuck because the language spec is so small. The exact opposite is true.


  • I’m not a fan of C++, but move semantics seem very clearly like a solution to a problem that C invented.

    Though to be honest I could live with manual memory management. What I really don’t understand is how anyone can bear to use C after rewriting the same monomorphic collection type for the 20th time.


  • In my opinion dependency injection solves a problem that doesn’t need to exist, and does it by adding even more obfuscation and complexity.

    The problem is that the original gang of four design patterns had very little to say about managing effects. In old java code things like network and file IO often happen deep inside the object graph, hidden behind multiple impenetrable abstractions such that it’s impossible to run the logic without triggering the effect.

    The wrong solution is to add even more obfuscation and abstraction, so that you can inject replacement classes deep inside the object graph where the effects happen. it solves the immediate problem of implementing tests, but makes everything else worse and more confusing.

    The right solution is to surface all your effects at the top level of the call graph. The logic only generates data, and passes it back up to the top level of the program. The top level code then decides whether to feed this data into an effectful operation. Now all your code is easier to reason about, and in you can easily test the logic without triggering unwanted effects.



  • The specifics of C’s design could barely be less important. In the 70s it was one of countless ALGOL derivatives churned out on-demand to support R&D projects like Unix.

    Unix succeeded, but it could have been written in any of these languages. The C design process was governed by the difficulty of compiler implementation; everyone was copying ALGOL 68 but some of the features took too long to implement. If Dennis Ritchie had an extra free weekend in 1972, C might have a module system. But he didn’t, so it doesn’t.