(Google generates a lot of irrelevant results if I search for "std::list" including the quotes. They really need to fix that.)
Name:
Anonymous2012-05-23 3:18
>>3 It's also less flexible for arbitrary data types, not easily composed and generates insane code.
There's these things called inheritance and lambda expressions in C++11. It's better than shitting your binaries up with bloated abstractions and shitty object-models.
struct log_sink : list_node_t
{
log_handler handler;
unsigned int min_level;
unsigned int max_level;
char category[196];
log_sink(char const* n, log_handler h, unsigned int min, unsigned int max)
: handler(h),
min_level(min),
max_level(max) {
::up::list_init(this);
strncpy(category, n, sizeof(category) - 1);
category[sizeof(category) - 1] = '\0';
}
};
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds <at> linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Convert builin-mailinfo.c to use The Better String Library.
Newsgroups: gmane.comp.version-control.git
Date: 2007-09-06 17:50:28 GMT (2 years, 14 weeks, 16 hours and 36 minutes ago)
On Wed, 5 Sep 2007, Dmitry Kakurin wrote:
When I first looked at Git source code two things struck me as odd: 1. Pure C as opposed to C++. No idea why. Please don't talk about portability, it's BS.
*YOU* are full of bullshit.
C++ is a horrible language. It's made more horrible by the fact that a lot
of substandard programmers use it, to the point where it's much much
easier to generate total and utter crap with it. Quite frankly, even if
the choice of C were to do *nothing* but keep the C++ programmers out,
that in itself would be a huge reason to use C.
In other words: the choice of C is the only sane choice. I know Miles
Bader jokingly said "to piss you off", but it's actually true. I've come
to the conclusion that any programmer that would prefer the project to be
in C++ over C is likely a programmer that I really *would* prefer to piss
off, so that he doesn't come and screw up any project I'm involved with.
C++ leads to really really bad design choices. You invariably start using
the "nice" library features of the language like STL and Boost and other
total and utter crap, that may "help" you program, but causes:
- infinite amounts of pain when they don't work (and anybody who tells me
that STL and especially Boost are stable and portable is just so full
of BS that it's not even funny)
- inefficient abstracted programming models where two years down the road
you notice that some abstraction wasn't very efficient, but now all
your code depends on all the nice object models around it, and you
cannot fix it without rewriting your app.
In other words, the only way to do good, efficient, and system-level and
portable C++ ends up to limit yourself to all the things that are
basically available in C. And limiting your project to C means that people
don't screw that up, and also means that you get a lot of programmers that
do actually understand low-level issues and don't screw things up with any
idiotic "object model" crap.
So I'm sorry, but for something like git, where efficiency was a primary
objective, the "advantages" of C++ is just a huge mistake. The fact that
we also piss off people who cannot see that is just a big additional
advantage.
If you want a VCS that is written in C++, go play with Monotone. Really.
They use a "real database". They use "nice object-oriented libraries".
They use "nice C++ abstractions". And quite frankly, as a result of all
these design decisions that sound so appealing to some CS people, the end
result is a horrible and unmaintainable mess.
But I'm sure you'd like it more than git.
Linus
Name:
Anonymous2012-05-23 3:34
>>6
Why? Because I made the decision to use C++ as an improved C with the lambda expressions, function overloading, default arguments, namespaces, and template functions/classes for where it makes sense? Most of the Standard C++ library is pure fucking junk compared to the Standard C and POSIX libraries.
Name:
Anonymous2012-05-23 3:54
>>7
Too bad Linus is a ranting idiot. The Linux kernel isn't even that great.
Names ending in _t are reserved for the implementation of the POSIX standard so I would not use them, otherwise OK; when you care about the implementation of a list it probably makes sense to roll it yourself. What's the big deal?
You can't get any better than STL data structures in terms of algorithm complexity. GTFO faggot.
Name:
Anonymous2012-05-26 18:51
>>33
Really? I could have sworn that a rope is faster than a string at several operations, and rope isn't part of the STL
Name:
Anonymous2012-05-26 19:25
>>5
or you could just quit fucking around and use v8 already
Name:
Anonymous2012-05-26 19:59
>>34
any attempt to improve speed of concatenation will be at the cost of the speed of random access. Although a good compromise can be reached, sometimes one operation is much more important than the other, and it can be worth it to support one well and be inefficient for the other, rarely used ones.
Name:
Anonymous2012-05-27 4:18
>>36
But you just said You can't get any better than STL data structures in terms of algorithm complexity
>>38
Well, you're arguing for an idiot seeing as how anyone with even the tiniest knowledge of algorithmic complexity understands that there are always tradeoffs between different data structures.