/prog/ - Why still use C++?

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-19 2:01

So, why do people still use C++ if it is so complicated? Here is what I was thinking tonight. I was watching that lecture about the C++ Renaissance, but a lot of the code was so messy even for very basic stuff. Also, the libraries were very limited to just basic computational stuff. Then we look at things like Java or Lisp were the already given libraries can do things like GUI and concurrency (C++ took a long time to catch up). Everything is pretty safe and easy to code. I do not understand why so much of the industry still uses C++.

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-19 2:12

>>1
Because garbage collection is exactly that, garbage. Call me when there's a general purpose language as expressive as Lisp, with strong typying, static compilation to machine code, and without the gargbage collection.

I don't want a language to hold my hand when it comes to memory management. I don't want a language that runs in a virtual machine.

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-19 2:15

>>1
Also, the concurrency libraries in C++ far surpass those in Java or Lisp these days. Take a look at PPL, TBB, OpenMP or C++AMP.

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-19 2:48

/g/'s response. At least they know what they say. http://boards.4chan.org/g/res/20099123?watch#20099123

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-19 2:50

>>4
Who gives a shit. Garbage collection is considered harmful. Also, go back to http://boards.4chan.org/g

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-19 17:11

GC is shit

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-19 17:12

reference counting > manual memory management > gc

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-19 17:20

I want a dialect of C with `C-like dynamic code generation and a Lisp-like macro preprocessor.

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-19 17:21

reference counting + manual memory management > manual memory management > reference counting > gc

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-19 17:26

>>9
You're a fag
Why distribute your garbage collector across an entire program and plague it with bugs when you can use a real garbage collector?

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-19 17:49

fuck off and die you fucking byte-caressing dipshits

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-19 18:18

>>10
Because a real GC is real shit.

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-19 18:18

>>10
Eh..? You're trolling right?

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-19 18:29

I give up. I just hope the manual memory management faggot gets a name/tripcode so I can filter out his bullshit.

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-19 19:00

Reference counting is slower than real gc. Prove me wrong.

Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2011-09-19 19:23

>>15
Python, perl, and ruby still use a bunch of dumb mark and sweep algorithms.

Name: Fartist 2011-09-19 19:46

VICTORY TO THE FARTISTS!

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-19 21:22

>>16
Python and Ruby (I don't know about Perl) are designed and implemented by people who don't have a clue about anything. Using the result of their cretinism as a way to benchmark success is stupid. Learn to troll, faggot.

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 14:36

>>18
Just because you don't know how does the bare metal work doesn't mean you are a clueless programmer who writes stupid shit.

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 14:52

>>16
You're company is shit.

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 14:52

>>20
http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/article/113524/companies-where-employees-losing-hope-247-2
Forgot my link.

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 14:53

>>18
forgot PHP

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 14:57

>>2,3,5,7,9,19
What the fuck? I am the one true GC_is_shit guy and this imposter's half truths are pissing me right off.

Also: >>8 is at least on the right track

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 14:59

VM+JIT+GC/MMM is the way. >>23 is a huge faggot.

Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2011-09-20 15:10

>>20
What happened homer? Was the technical interview too technical for you?

Name: >>8 2011-09-20 15:19

>>23
From my point of view, the only case in which GC truly helps is with closures, and `C emulates them brilliantly. All other uses of GC are unnecessary bloat.
Someone should add `C support to gcc.

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 15:33

>>23
YOU are the imposter.

GC is shit.

Name: kodak_grallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2011-09-20 15:34

>>26
From my point of view, the only case in which GC truly helps is with closures, and `C emulates them brilliantly

What the fuck are you smoking? Please tell me that you're stoned or trolling.

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 15:34

i respectfully submit that GC is not shit

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 15:36

>>28
http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/tickc/

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 15:36

GC is great. Exclusive GC is shit.

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 15:40

>>30
So? That still doesn't support your idiotic assertions.

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 16:09

>>32
In the vast majority of cases, allocation/deallocation is stack-shaped, and it is trivial to do without GC. Some other cases involve cycles, but they're actually quite rarely needed and easily resolved using weak references. My point is that the only things for which GC is useful are closures.

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 16:24

>>33
nice dubz bro.

Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2011-09-20 16:43

>>33

Remind me never to hire you.

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 16:44

>>35
fuck off and die already

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 16:47

>>36
Go run off and scrub another toilet you mental midget.

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 16:52

>>37
Just as I thought smug 16-year old lispers were the most annoying plague that this board could possibly face, you came along. Sincerely, fuck you.

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 17:39

This thread gave me ahegao.

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 18:24

>>33
D- would not hire. Also, GC would be worth it if only for closures.

Why still use C++?

1 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-19 2:01

2 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-19 2:12

3 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-19 2:15

4 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-19 2:48

5 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-19 2:50

6 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-19 17:11

7 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-19 17:12

8 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-19 17:20

9 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-19 17:21

10 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-19 17:26

11 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-19 17:49

12 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-19 18:18

13 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-19 18:18

14 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-19 18:29

15 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-19 19:00

16 Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2011-09-19 19:23

17 Name: Fartist 2011-09-19 19:46

18 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-19 21:22

19 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 14:36

20 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 14:52

21 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 14:52

22 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 14:53

23 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 14:57

24 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 14:59

25 Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2011-09-20 15:10

26 Name: >>8 2011-09-20 15:19

27 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 15:33

28 Name: kodak_grallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2011-09-20 15:34

29 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 15:34

30 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 15:36

31 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 15:36

32 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 15:40

33 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 16:09

34 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 16:24

35 Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2011-09-20 16:43

36 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 16:44

37 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 16:47

38 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 16:52

39 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 17:39

40 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 18:24

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-19 2:01

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-19 2:12

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-19 2:15

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-19 2:48

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-19 2:50

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-19 17:11

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-19 17:12

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-19 17:20

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-19 17:21

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-19 17:26

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-19 17:49

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-19 18:18

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-19 18:18

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-19 18:29

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-19 19:00

Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2011-09-19 19:23

Name: Fartist 2011-09-19 19:46

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-19 21:22

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 14:36

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 14:52

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 14:52

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 14:53

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 14:57

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 14:59

Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2011-09-20 15:10

Name: >>8 2011-09-20 15:19

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 15:33

Name: kodak_grallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2011-09-20 15:34

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 15:34

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 15:36

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 15:36

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 15:40

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 16:09

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 16:24

Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2011-09-20 16:43

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 16:44

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 16:47

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 16:52

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 17:39

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 18:24