Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #87211 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-11-03 14:30 -0500 |
| Last post | 2022-11-09 07:59 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 37 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++
“The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry” Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2022-11-03 14:30 -0500
Re: “The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry” "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-11-03 13:03 -0700
Re: “The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry” "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-11-03 13:04 -0700
Re: “The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry” Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2022-11-03 16:07 -0500
Re: “The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry” Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2022-11-03 16:05 -0500
Re: “The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry” "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-11-03 14:25 -0700
Re: “The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry” Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2022-11-05 14:12 -0500
Re: “The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry” "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-11-05 14:20 -0700
Re: “The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry” Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-11-04 09:24 +0100
Re: “The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry” Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-05 21:42 +0000
Re: “The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry” "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-11-06 11:55 -0800
Re: “The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry” Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-11-08 02:44 -0800
Re: ???The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry??? Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-11-08 11:29 +0000
Re: ???The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry??? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-11-08 03:54 -0800
Re: ???The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry??? Stuart Redmann <DerTopper@web.de> - 2022-11-08 14:26 +0100
Re: ???The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry??? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-11-09 00:22 -0800
Re: ???The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry??? Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-11-08 15:16 +0000
Re: ???The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry??? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-11-08 14:52 +0100
Re: ???The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry??? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2022-11-08 22:48 +0000
Re: ???The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry??? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-11-08 15:39 -0800
Re: ???The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry??? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-11-09 09:29 +0100
Re: ???The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry??? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-11-09 14:39 +0000
Re: ???The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry??? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-11-09 17:05 +0100
Re: ???The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry??? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-11-09 17:58 +0000
Re: ???The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry??? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-11-09 11:47 -0800
Re: ???The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry??? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-11-09 20:43 +0000
Re: ???The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry??? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-11-10 09:52 +0100
Re: ???The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry??? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2022-11-10 03:07 -0800
Re: ???The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry??? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-11-10 11:53 -0800
Re: ???The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry??? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-11-10 21:44 +0100
Re: ???The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry??? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-11-10 12:53 -0800
Re: ???The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry??? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-11-10 21:20 +0000
Re: ???The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry??? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-11-10 13:23 -0800
Re: ???The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry??? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-11-11 08:10 +0100
Re: ???The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry??? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-11-11 01:45 -0800
Re: ???The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry??? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2022-11-10 03:14 -0800
Re: ???The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry??? Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2022-11-09 07:59 -0500
Page 1 of 2 [1] 2 Next page →
| From | Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-03 14:30 -0500 |
| Subject | “The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry” |
| Message-ID | <tk14tc$1h5hb$6@dont-email.me> |
“The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry” https://www.efinancialcareers.com/news/2022/11/why-is-there-a-drought-in-the-talent-pool-for-c-developers Huh, maybe I can get one of those vaunted C++ $500,000/year developer jobs even at my age of 62. Hat tip to: https://www.codeproject.com/script/Mailouts/View.aspx?mlid=16845 Lynn
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-03 13:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <tk16q1$1hg08$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87211 |
On 11/3/2022 12:30 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote: > “The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry” > > https://www.efinancialcareers.com/news/2022/11/why-is-there-a-drought-in-the-talent-pool-for-c-developers > > Huh, maybe I can get one of those vaunted C++ $500,000/year developer > jobs even at my age of 62. Make sure to include the experience of porting a 700,000+ line legacy Fortran 77 program into C++ Lynn. :^) > > Hat tip to: > https://www.codeproject.com/script/Mailouts/View.aspx?mlid=16845
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-03 13:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <tk16rk$1hg08$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87212 |
On 11/3/2022 1:03 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 11/3/2022 12:30 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote: >> “The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry” >> >> https://www.efinancialcareers.com/news/2022/11/why-is-there-a-drought-in-the-talent-pool-for-c-developers >> >> Huh, maybe I can get one of those vaunted C++ $500,000/year developer >> jobs even at my age of 62. > > Make sure to include the experience of porting a 700,000+ line legacy > Fortran 77 program into C++ Lynn. :^) Just another aspect of your resume... > >> >> Hat tip to: >> https://www.codeproject.com/script/Mailouts/View.aspx?mlid=16845 >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-03 16:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tk1aj3$1hq90$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87213 |
On 11/3/2022 3:04 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 11/3/2022 1:03 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> On 11/3/2022 12:30 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote: >>> “The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry” >>> >>> https://www.efinancialcareers.com/news/2022/11/why-is-there-a-drought-in-the-talent-pool-for-c-developers >>> >>> Huh, maybe I can get one of those vaunted C++ $500,000/year developer >>> jobs even at my age of 62. >> >> Make sure to include the experience of porting a 700,000+ line legacy >> Fortran 77 program into C++ Lynn. :^) > > Just another aspect of your resume... I turned down a job offer from Microsoft in 1987 and Google in 2004. Wait, that might not look good on my resume. Lynn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-03 16:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tk1afk$1hq90$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87212 |
On 11/3/2022 3:03 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 11/3/2022 12:30 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote: >> “The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry” >> >> https://www.efinancialcareers.com/news/2022/11/why-is-there-a-drought-in-the-talent-pool-for-c-developers >> >> Huh, maybe I can get one of those vaunted C++ $500,000/year developer >> jobs even at my age of 62. > > Make sure to include the experience of porting a 700,000+ line legacy > Fortran 77 program into C++ Lynn. :^) > >> >> Hat tip to: >> https://www.codeproject.com/script/Mailouts/View.aspx?mlid=16845 > I've gotta finish the experience first. It is a monster. Lynn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-03 14:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <tk1bkm$1hki3$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87214 |
On 11/3/2022 2:05 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote: > On 11/3/2022 3:03 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> On 11/3/2022 12:30 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote: >>> “The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry” >>> >>> https://www.efinancialcareers.com/news/2022/11/why-is-there-a-drought-in-the-talent-pool-for-c-developers >>> >>> Huh, maybe I can get one of those vaunted C++ $500,000/year developer >>> jobs even at my age of 62. >> >> Make sure to include the experience of porting a 700,000+ line legacy >> Fortran 77 program into C++ Lynn. :^) >> >>> >>> Hat tip to: >>> https://www.codeproject.com/script/Mailouts/View.aspx?mlid=16845 >> > > I've gotta finish the experience first. It is a monster. Heck, add current experience. Like a log in a resume. Include a link in the "short" version to a longer version that records your journey in the porting process.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-05 14:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tk6cj0$1j9g$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #87217 |
On 11/3/2022 4:25 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 11/3/2022 2:05 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote: >> On 11/3/2022 3:03 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>> On 11/3/2022 12:30 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote: >>>> “The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry” >>>> >>>> https://www.efinancialcareers.com/news/2022/11/why-is-there-a-drought-in-the-talent-pool-for-c-developers >>>> >>>> Huh, maybe I can get one of those vaunted C++ $500,000/year >>>> developer jobs even at my age of 62. >>> >>> Make sure to include the experience of porting a 700,000+ line legacy >>> Fortran 77 program into C++ Lynn. :^) >>> >>>> >>>> Hat tip to: >>>> https://www.codeproject.com/script/Mailouts/View.aspx?mlid=16845 >>> >> >> I've gotta finish the experience first. It is a monster. > > Heck, add current experience. Like a log in a resume. Include a link in > the "short" version to a longer version that records your journey in the > porting process. I haven't touched my resume since 1989. It is fairly out of date. Lynn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-05 14:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <tk6k2d$2lum9$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87256 |
On 11/5/2022 12:12 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote: > On 11/3/2022 4:25 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> On 11/3/2022 2:05 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote: >>> On 11/3/2022 3:03 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>> On 11/3/2022 12:30 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote: >>>>> “The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry” >>>>> >>>>> https://www.efinancialcareers.com/news/2022/11/why-is-there-a-drought-in-the-talent-pool-for-c-developers >>>>> >>>>> Huh, maybe I can get one of those vaunted C++ $500,000/year >>>>> developer jobs even at my age of 62. >>>> >>>> Make sure to include the experience of porting a 700,000+ line >>>> legacy Fortran 77 program into C++ Lynn. :^) >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hat tip to: >>>>> https://www.codeproject.com/script/Mailouts/View.aspx?mlid=16845 >>>> >>> >>> I've gotta finish the experience first. It is a monster. >> >> Heck, add current experience. Like a log in a resume. Include a link >> in the "short" version to a longer version that records your journey >> in the porting process. > > I haven't touched my resume since 1989. It is fairly out of date. Shit happens. Well, go ahead and update the file. :^)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-04 09:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tk2i8b$1njk7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87214 |
Am 03.11.2022 um 22:05 schrieb Lynn McGuire: > On 11/3/2022 3:03 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> On 11/3/2022 12:30 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote: >>> “The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry” >>> >>> https://www.efinancialcareers.com/news/2022/11/why-is-there-a-drought-in-the-talent-pool-for-c-developers >>> >>> Huh, maybe I can get one of those vaunted C++ $500,000/year developer >>> jobs even at my age of 62. >> >> Make sure to include the experience of porting a 700,000+ line legacy >> Fortran 77 program into C++ Lynn. :^) >> >>> >>> Hat tip to: >>> https://www.codeproject.com/script/Mailouts/View.aspx?mlid=16845 >> > > I've gotta finish the experience first. It is a monster. With your skills of couse.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-05 21:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tk6lcc$2ltmi$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87211 |
On 03/11/2022 19:30, Lynn McGuire wrote: > “The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry” > > https://www.efinancialcareers.com/news/2022/11/why-is-there-a-drought-in-the-talent-pool-for-c-developers > > Huh, maybe I can get one of those vaunted C++ $500,000/year developer > jobs even at my age of 62. > > Hat tip to: > https://www.codeproject.com/script/Mailouts/View.aspx?mlid=16845 > It got one drier. I quit in April (UK tax year). I wasn't earning 500k, but I reckon I have enough put away for the rest of my life. It's a balance between running out of money, and running out of health :( There was an article in today's paper about the growing number of people becoming economically inactive. Including early retirees. The tax system over here doesn't help much mind - it's discouraging when the government gets more of your earnings when you do. And anyway ... why am I still reading this newsgroup? <g> Andy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-06 11:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <tk93ek$395b5$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87211 |
On 11/3/2022 12:30 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote: > “The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry” > > https://www.efinancialcareers.com/news/2022/11/why-is-there-a-drought-in-the-talent-pool-for-c-developers > > Huh, maybe I can get one of those vaunted C++ $500,000/year developer > jobs even at my age of 62. > > Hat tip to: > https://www.codeproject.com/script/Mailouts/View.aspx?mlid=16845 > Fwiw, I am good at C. I know C++, but do not yet totally understand some of its more "modern" features, so to speak. I know enough C++ to code up synchronization algorithms ala atomic and membars, but feel more at _home_, in C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-08 02:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fafc95cb-aecb-4235-9cc8-6b948366ca2an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #87211 |
On Thursday, 3 November 2022 at 19:31:10 UTC, Lynn McGuire wrote: > “The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry” > > https://www.efinancialcareers.com/news/2022/11/why-is-there-a-drought-in-the-talent-pool-for-c-developers > > Huh, maybe I can get one of those vaunted C++ $500,000/year developer > jobs even at my age of 62. > > Hat tip to: > https://www.codeproject.com/script/Mailouts/View.aspx?mlid=16845 > You keep on adding features to the language which have unintuitive syntax and odd rules, and don't do much to increase the number of programs you can write quickly. So what happens? Theres not much motivation to learn these features until forced to do so. So codebases tend to be mainly legacy, and C++ programmers' skills fall behind.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-08 11:29 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: ???The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry??? |
| Message-ID | <tkdeht$8bb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #87282 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> wrote: > You keep on adding features to the language which have unintuitive syntax and odd rules, and > don't do much to increase the number of programs you can write quickly. So what happens? > Theres not much motivation to learn these features until forced to do so. So codebases tend > to be mainly legacy, and C++ programmers' skills fall behind. For the longest time I quite strongly disagreed with the claim that C++ is becoming too big and too complicated. However, C++20 has eroded this conviction of mine somewhat. C++23 is eroding it even more. C++11 felt like a big bunch of features that the language was in dire need of, and genuinely made programming easier. C++14 and C++17 fixed and patched many of the minor problems and defects that turned out to exist in C++11, so C++17 felt like "what C++11 should have been in the first place". C++20, however, doesn't feel like this anymore. It has a few new features that genuinely help in programming, but most of it feels like just adding features for the sake of adding them. C++23 even moreso. With both there are tons of features for which I genuinely think "who exactly asked for this? Who actually needs this? Does the language truly need and benefit from this?" When you read the feature proposal papers, they feel a lot like it's just someone proposing a feature for the sake of proposing it, rather than it filling an *actual* useful need that the language is in dire need of. In many cases I don't even understand why they have been accepted. And even so, even when some feature *is* somewhat widely requested, they should still weigh in how much it *actually* contributes to the usability of the language, and how much it adds to its complexity (which is already quite high). The standardization committee seems to have a problem with saying "no" even to some sounds-like-it-could-be-useful feature proposals (not to talk about some that aren't all that useful). This feeling of adding-features-just-for-the-sake-of-adding-them is something that has really started to give me a distaste for the newer versions of the standard. Both C++20 and C++23 have actual useful features that I'm looking forward to, but they seem to be a very small minority of all features.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-08 03:54 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: ???The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry??? |
| Message-ID | <13fccc5e-1857-44c9-b63f-5563eb86289dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #87283 |
On Tuesday, 8 November 2022 at 13:29:19 UTC+2, Juha Nieminen wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > You keep on adding features to the language which have unintuitive syntax and odd rules, and > > don't do much to increase the number of programs you can write quickly. So what happens? > > Theres not much motivation to learn these features until forced to do so. So codebases tend > > to be mainly legacy, and C++ programmers' skills fall behind. > For the longest time I quite strongly disagreed with the claim that C++ is > becoming too big and too complicated. > > However, C++20 has eroded this conviction of mine somewhat. C++23 is eroding > it even more. > > C++11 felt like a big bunch of features that the language was in dire need > of, and genuinely made programming easier. C++14 and C++17 fixed and patched > many of the minor problems and defects that turned out to exist in C++11, > so C++17 felt like "what C++11 should have been in the first place". > > C++20, however, doesn't feel like this anymore. It has a few new features > that genuinely help in programming, but most of it feels like just adding > features for the sake of adding them. C++23 even moreso. > > With both there are tons of features for which I genuinely think "who > exactly asked for this? Who actually needs this? Does the language truly > need and benefit from this?" > > When you read the feature proposal papers, they feel a lot like it's > just someone proposing a feature for the sake of proposing it, rather > than it filling an *actual* useful need that the language is in dire > need of. In many cases I don't even understand why they have been > accepted. > > And even so, even when some feature *is* somewhat widely requested, they > should still weigh in how much it *actually* contributes to the usability > of the language, and how much it adds to its complexity (which is already > quite high). The standardization committee seems to have a problem with > saying "no" even to some sounds-like-it-could-be-useful feature proposals > (not to talk about some that aren't all that useful). > > This feeling of adding-features-just-for-the-sake-of-adding-them is > something that has really started to give me a distaste for the newer > versions of the standard. Both C++20 and C++23 have actual useful > features that I'm looking forward to, but they seem to be a very small > minority of all features. I disagree on C++17. What the core language of C++14 guaranteed was quite trashed by C++17. It is impossible to write vector in it; the std::vector is magical class now. Things that were added felt like sabotage not needed features. C++17 added few library features that are sorely needed as those are all magical too and also those were added noticeably poorly on closer examination. Compilers of course compile most UBs that we have in our code-bases (as the codebases of compiler suppliers are full of same UBs) until the suppliers decide otherwise. Same trend continues in C++20 and C++23. C++ should either roll most of that broken beyond fixing garbage back ... or it makes sense to migrate to Rust, Swift, D or C in what it is possible to write software without using magical classes of standard library only.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stuart Redmann <DerTopper@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-08 14:26 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: ???The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry??? |
| Message-ID | <1517931718.689606548.286592.DerTopper-web.de@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #87285 |
Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> wrote: > I disagree on C++17. What the core language of C++14 guaranteed was > quite trashed by C++17. It is impossible to write vector in it; the > std::vector is magical class now. Could you elaborate this? Or maybe post a link? A quick web search yields nothing usable :-/ TIA, Stuart
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-09 00:22 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: ???The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry??? |
| Message-ID | <94332d5e-86cc-4ca6-add1-90b1ff837260n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #87288 |
On Tuesday, 8 November 2022 at 15:26:21 UTC+2, Stuart Redmann wrote: > Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee> wrote: > > > I disagree on C++17. What the core language of C++14 guaranteed was > > quite trashed by C++17. It is impossible to write vector in it; the > > std::vector is magical class now. > Could you elaborate this? Or maybe post a link? A quick web search yields > nothing usable :-/ Before C++11 an element of vector had to be CopyAssignable and CopyConstructible and that was constraining but doable. After C++11 it was required to be Erasable and more constraints were split between individual methods. At the same time the object lifetime grew dim and complicated so it was unclear how the requirements can be met without magic when just requiring Erasable. In C++14 it felt still fixable by correcting some problems. C++17 however added explicit undefined behaviors to nasty places (that compilers can exploit in optimizations) and so made quite explicit that what is required takes magic. The std::launder() added does look from afar that it might help but on closer inspection does not. For example the P0532 of Nikolai Josuttis elaborates how launder does not help at all on example of vector.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-08 15:16 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: ???The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry??? |
| Message-ID | <tkdrst$5c3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #87285 |
Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> wrote: > I disagree on C++17. What the core language of C++14 guaranteed was > quite trashed by C++17. If you read the list of added features in C++17 (from eg. the Wikipedia article), most of them sound quite useful and practical, many making things simpler. There are a few features that could have probably been left out without anybody really missing them, but most of them seem very practical. The text message for static_assert becoming optional is handy and nice. The "namespace x::y::z" syntax for nested namespaces is really convenient. The new attributes are useful (especially [[maybe_unused]]). Initializers in 'if' and 'switch' statements may not be crucial, but sometimes they become handy. The same can be said of structured bindings and class template argument deduction. Mandatory copy elision adds an efficiency guarantee (and doesn't change the language syntax itself), so that's nice. Inline variables are actually useful, especially for header-only libraries. __has_include is a nice-to-have feature. constexpr functions are quite a swamp that should have been thought better in C++11, but given that they exist in their current form and we are stuck with them, 'if constexpr' can be a useful addition. (The same could be said of variadic templates and the new fold expressions in C++17.) (Not going to comment about the additions to the standard library because the library is not part of the core language syntax and semantics, and thus not really what I'm talking about here.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-08 14:52 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: ???The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry??? |
| Message-ID | <tkdmv5$3ts2a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87283 |
Am 08.11.2022 um 12:29 schrieb Juha Nieminen: > C++20, however, doesn't feel like this anymore. It has a few new features > that genuinely help in programming, but most of it feels like just adding > features for the sake of adding them. C++23 even moreso. I don't think ranges are really necessary, but they're of course techni- cally very elegant. But concepts and cororoutines really rock. Don't use them if you're overburdened with them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-08 22:48 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: ???The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry??? |
| Message-ID | <slrntmln51.h7h.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid> |
| In reply to | #87283 |
On Tue, 2022-11-08, Juha Nieminen wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> wrote: >> You keep on adding features to the language which have unintuitive >> syntax and odd rules, and don't do much to increase the number of >> programs you can write quickly. So what happens? Theres not much >> motivation to learn these features until forced to do so. So >> codebases tend to be mainly legacy, and C++ programmers' skills >> fall behind. > > For the longest time I quite strongly disagreed with the claim that C++ is > becoming too big and too complicated. > > However, C++20 has eroded this conviction of mine somewhat. C++23 is eroding > it even more. > > C++11 felt like a big bunch of features that the language was in dire need > of, and genuinely made programming easier. C++14 and C++17 fixed and patched > many of the minor problems and defects that turned out to exist in C++11, > so C++17 felt like "what C++11 should have been in the first place". Same here (although I haven't bought C++17 yet; I'm still at C++14). I think we can conclude it's not just me and you growing old and conservative: there /has/ been a shift in how C++ evolves, and such a shift will have drawbacks. Going back to the "pool of talented C++ developers" angle, I have sometimes wondered if this evolution has been necessary to attract developers. Maybe the youngsters are used to the constantly changing web environments, and won't touch something which hasn't changed in a decade? But I don't believe that. I believe we need a subset of programmers to deal with big programs with a long lifetime which go through lots of small, incremental changes. C++ is a good fit for that, but quick changes to the C++ language are not. One thing I've learned in recent years at work is that you don't need everyone to start out as a C++ expert. We've had to hire several newbies who didn't know C++ or had spent a few weeks with it at university. Those with talent for that kind of development learn surprisingly quickly from the existing code base, and from reviews. Even those who I assumed were damaged by too much Python. /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-08 15:39 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: ???The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry??? |
| Message-ID | <tkepas$15jv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87283 |
On 11/8/2022 3:29 AM, Juha Nieminen wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> wrote: >> You keep on adding features to the language which have unintuitive syntax and odd rules, and >> don't do much to increase the number of programs you can write quickly. So what happens? >> Theres not much motivation to learn these features until forced to do so. So codebases tend >> to be mainly legacy, and C++ programmers' skills fall behind. > > For the longest time I quite strongly disagreed with the claim that C++ is > becoming too big and too complicated. > > However, C++20 has eroded this conviction of mine somewhat. C++23 is eroding > it even more. > > C++11 felt like a big bunch of features that the language was in dire need > of, and genuinely made programming easier. C++14 and C++17 fixed and patched > many of the minor problems and defects that turned out to exist in C++11, > so C++17 felt like "what C++11 should have been in the first place". [...] I was really excited and happy when C++ finally made atomics and membars part of the actual standard, C++11 iirc. Before that, I would have to code these things up in assembly language.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 2 [1] 2 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web