Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #87303
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c++ |
| Subject | Re: ???The pool of talented C++ developers is running dry??? |
| Date | 2022-11-09 11:47 -0800 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <tkh03q$a45v$3@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <tk14tc$1h5hb$6@dont-email.me> <fafc95cb-aecb-4235-9cc8-6b948366ca2an@googlegroups.com> <tkdeht$8bb$1@gioia.aioe.org> <tkepas$15jv$1@dont-email.me> <tkfoch$695m$1@dont-email.me> |
On 11/9/2022 12:29 AM, David Brown wrote: > On 09/11/2022 00:39, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> 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 agree with that. > > A challenge for C++ is that even when a new and better feature is added, > the older and clumsier methods still have to be supported. This also > means that syntax can be awkward because it can't conflict with existing > syntax, and the details get more complex all the time. > >> >> 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. >> > > Standard atomics would be great if they worked for my targets. The gcc > implementations (and I haven't seen any others) for "advanced" use > (read-modify-write, or sizes larger than a standard register) is > completely broken for single-core systems, and even on multi-core > systems it is limited if you use thread priorities. The trouble with > them is that no one has addressed the elephant in the room - in general, > you need OS support and locks to implement large atomics. Are you referring to double-width compare-and-swap (DWCAS)? C++ should be able to handle it directly using the processors instruction set. Say C++ on a modern 64 bit x64 system, well CMPXCHG16B should be used for a double word. Double word in the sense that they are two _contiguous_ words. In other words, a lock-free CAS of a double word on a 64 bit x64 should use CMPXCHG16B.
Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
“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
csiph-web