• MangoCats@feddit.it
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    17 hours ago

    C/C++ don’t help you avoid any of these footguns.

    But libraries like Boost do… if you’re writing in raw C++ you’re doing it wrong. A big part of the power of C/C++ is the mature and modern ecosystem built around it.

      • MangoCats@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Except that C++ libraries often make the end result run slower, instead of the Python way where “native” Python runs at a glacial pace compared to its library calls.

    • fubarx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Yes, but nobody in their right mind will use boost at OS kernel or driver level. Also, using C++ has vtable/exception overhead. No-go.

      I worked at companies that tried both. They no longer exist.

      • MangoCats@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        15 hours ago

        I’ve worked at plenty of companies that no longer exist, and startups that “made it big,” and big companies that lumber along… how good their programming practices were, how well thier software performed, has just about zero correlation with how well they do in business.

        As you point out: different tools are more/less appropriate for different applications. Rust has good overlap with C and C++ places, and in kernel land it’s subbing for C.

        I’ve never tinkered in kernel space much - repaired a few OpenGL drivers because nobody else would step up and do it, but I usually stay in the higher abstraction levels. What do kernel people think of libraries like GLib?