| ||||
 Comment on Reader Q&A: "Will C++ remain indispensable…?" by Herb Sutter
@Matt: No, and they won’t be because it’s not what they’re for. See http://herbsutter.com/2012/04/02/reader-qa-when-will-better-jits-save-managed-code/ . Read More »Comment on Reader Q&A: "Will C++ remain indispensable…?" by Matt Campbell
I think it’s dangerous to promote C++ as a general-purpose programming language today, because C++ is not memory-safe. For the vast majority of code, we should use a language and runtime environment that provide a solid bedrock of abstraction, so that things like buffer overflows and stack smashes are simply impossible. Aren’t JIT compilers good enough now that we can relegate C++ to the last resort for the small amount of code that where performance really matters, rather than the first choice? See also: Comment on Reader Q&A: "Will C++ remain indispensable…?" by Magnus
Matt: Clang (and other tools) is getting really good at detecting undefined behaviours and unwanted memory accesses in debug builds. There is also a lot more emphasis on defining what standard behaviour should be in C++, and for compiler vendors to follow it. I think this the “one C++” thing Herb talked about, but I haven’t got to that video yet in my Going Native binge :). Lots of great work being done by Herb and others at the moment, thanks! Programmes operate on data in memory. C++ is a “real” programming language while others aren’t as far as I’m concerned because it lets me tell what the computer to do with that memory, without fuss. I don’t like working in languages that think I don’t even know what a pointer is. Read More » | ||||
| | ||||
| ||||
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
FeedaMail: Comments for Sutter’s Mill
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment