And what's your suggestion to move to the next level of C++ programming for someone who may be called, well, an intermediate C++ programmer?
Intermediate Programmer: Understands ISO C++ reasonably well, can read and modify other's code with some luck, good with data structures and algorithms but not great
Learn C++0x
Learn what kind of assembly code gets generated for different construct types, maybe for x86
Forget language nuances and get the fundamentals -- automata theory from somewhere like Sipser or Papadimitriou
If you know OOP or at least think you do, consider how to incorporate functional programming skills with C++
Work on something on the lines of a compiler and open-source like LLVM or GNU Toolchain
The whole idea is busted -- the next level means more sophisticated data structures. So if you know AVL, consider learning left leaning red black trees et al
Now obviously nobody can do everything in this list without prioritizing, so we need some suggestion on what might be the best way forward.
NOTE: Thank you all for the very helpful responses.
I'd say you can do everything on the list, just not all at once. At least IMO, you're looking at things a bit backwards though. Learning C++ (or any other language) is a means to an end, not an end in itself.
Learning more advanced language techniques, more advanced data structures, etc., should mostly be done when and as needed to accomplish something. You certainly need a reasonable starting "base" to do much, but beyond a fairly small set of basics, most advanced techniques, data structures, etc., are also relatively specialized.
Instead of trying to learn something for it's own sake, write some code. When something seems clumsy, unnecessarily difficult, inflexible, etc., find a better way to handle it. This way, you'll not only learn the more advanced technique, data structure, etc., but also a good idea of what it really accomplishes so you'll have a decent idea of when, how, and why to use it (and just about as importantly, at least some idea of its limitations and when it's probably not applicable or useful).
To answer your specific questions:
Learn C++0x
You definitely need to do this. So possibly you have your answer right there...
Learn what kind of assembly code gets generated for different construct
types, maybe for x86
I would say learn how to understand the assembly language the compiler generates, in outline if not in detail. You certainly should not be trying to predict what the compiler will do, however.
Forget language nuances and get the fundamentals -- automata theory from
somewhere like Sipser or Papadimitriou
If it turns you on, I suppose...
If you know OOP or at least think you do, consider how to incorporate
functional programming skills with C++
Of all of the paradigms C++ supports, functional programming is probably the worst supported - if you want to learn FP, learn Haskell (or whatever), not C++.
Work on something on the lines of a compiler and open-source like LLVM or
GNU Toolchain
GNU is written in C, so it's not likely to boost your C++ skills - I know little about LLVM.
The whole idea is busted -- the next level means more sophisticated
data structures. So if you know AVL,
consider learning left leaning red
black trees et al
RB trees are not much more sophisticated than AVL trees - same basic concept. If you understand the basic structures covered in a data structures textbook, I don't see the need to dig further, unless the subject particularly interests you.
I'd learn about BOOST.
You can start piecemeal, just by using it, and as you get deeper into the libraries, you will find yourself thinking "How does that work?".
Using it will make you a more
productive and better C++ programmer!
Understanding how it works will get
you a "guru" badge!!
Contributing to and extending it will
ensure immortality!!!
If you know the basic language:
Then in this sort of order (though there will be some back tracking)
Learn study and digest RAII
Figure out how to use RAII in all C contexts so you are never stuck with C code.
Figure out Exceptions and what the exception guarantees are.
Figure out how to implement methods so that each of the different types of guarantees holds.
Learn about the standard containers.
Learn about the requirements required of each container.
Learn about iterators
Learn about iterator traits and how they work in conjunction with pointers.
Learn about the algorithms library
Learn about the stream library
Go back and learn how streams and iterators work
Learn about the method pointers and how they can be used in algorithms
Figure out what a functor is and how to use it.
Learn about bind and look at boost bind
Learn about the boost containers and how they differ from the standard containers.
Learn about smart pointers.
What are the different types and when to use each one effectively.
Start reading about the other things available in boost.
At this point you will be at the start of learning how to use C++
Learning assembly (e.g. to write assembly) might be a good idea, but I strongly suggest you don't become attached to the particulars of what your compiler generates, as that will change from version to version and optimization level to optimization level.
I would be a strong proponent of #4. Learning functional programming is very valuable. I haven't done a whole lot of it in C++, so I don't know how natural a fit it is, but I love how Ruby and Scala do functional programming.
I suggest you go into the designing part of programming. Learn how to design, write good code, learn good programming practices. Design patterns, UML, unit tests belong here.
As one hardly does the same thing all the time I also recommend, as you said, the assembly language. Learning assembly is fun and it really makes you understand computers better. Nothing beats the feeling of knowing how computers work at the lowest level.
Having knowledge of both low and high level programming beats everything else.
Don't worry too much about C++0x right now... make sure you really really really understand the basics first. This means make sure you understand references, pointers, L-values, R-values, templates, inheritance, memory management, etc etc. I'm not just saying grab a basic understanding of these, I'm saying really know the C++ memory model and what each expression means.
I really like #4 and #6. In regards to #6, try coding up some really advanced data structs in C++. Nothing will make you learn the language faster then trying to solve some problems that advanced data structs entail.
I'd say the next step is to read Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs from cover to cover and do the exercises.
Study how other people solve difficult problems in an elegant way. Very important: just practice, without forgetting to evaluate. Have your code or problem solving methods reviewed.
Yes (referring to point 4), learn other programming languages, especially those that have specific advantages over c++, rather than applying their techniques directly in C++. Focus on finding methods for yourself to code with as few errors disrupting your workflow as possible, find a calibrated systematic and abstract approach that you can always apply to problem solving and implementation.
Collect/build a set of tools/libraries and coding practices that allow you to stop inventing the wheel, but deal with all the most common tasks in the best ways. Cause if you think about it, appart from bugs, readability, scalability and extensibility and in much lesser degree performance, if you write code that gets the job done, you have actually shown yourself a good programmer.
I aim at productivity here. If you are more into theory, you might as well just occupy yourself with little snippets and obscure language features.
For another point of view: 7. Learn other programming languages, as different from C++ as is practical. Definitely learn about functional programming, and don't worry about how it applies to C++ yet. Some languages to consider: Scheme, Common Lisp, Haskell, Prolog, Forth, Smalltalk. You don't have to become proficient in them, but you should try to understand how they work and what's good code in those languages.
If all you know is one language, your thinking will be restricted to what's natural in that language. If you know more than one, you'll be able to think in more different ways. You'll be more flexible in your approach to problems.
Anything you mentioned above will make you become a better C++ programmer. You need to make a choice based on your career plan. For example, if you want to develop hardware driver with C++, you should learn assembly code generated.
Related
Lately I am losing my trust in OOP. I have already seen many
complaints about common OOP misuses or just simple overuse. I do not
mean the common confusion between is-a and has-a relationship. I mean
stuff like the problems of ORM when dealing with relational databases,
the excessive use of inheritance from C# and also several years of looking
at code with the same false encapsulation belief that Scott Meyers
mentions in the item 23 of Effective C++
I am interested in learning more about this and non OOP software
patterns that can solve certain problems better than their OOP
counterparts. I am convinced that out there there are many people
giving good advice on how to use this as an advantage with non pure OOP
languages such as C++.
Does anyone knows any good reference (author, book, article) to get
started?
Please, notice that I am looking for two related but different things:
Common misuses of OOP concepts (like item 23)
Patterns where OOP is not the best solution (with alternatives)
Well I can recommend you a book Agile Principles, Patterns, and Practices in C#.
Examples are in C# of course, but the idea of the book is universal. Not only it covers Agile but also focuses on bad practices and shows in examples how to convert bad code to a good code. It also contains descriptions of many design pattern and shows how to implement them in semi-real example of Payroll application.
This has to be done but if you truly want to get away from OOP or at least take a look at concepts which are not OOP but are used with great effectiveness: Learn you a Haskell. Try a new programming paradigm and then start seeing where you can apply much of the concepts back to OOP languages. This addresses your second bullet, not in a direct way but trust me, it'll help more than you can think.
It's a bit odd that you mention C#. It has very powerful keywords to keep the usual inheritance misery in check. The first one ought to be the internal keyword. The notion of restricting the visibility to a module. That concept is completely absent in C++, the build model just doesn't support it. Otherwise a great concept, "I only trust the members of my team to get it right". Of course you do.
Then there's the slammer one, the sealed keyword. Extraordinary powerful, "the buck stops here, don't mess with me". Used with surgical precision in the .NET framework, I've never yet found a case where sealed was used inappropriately. Also missing in C++, but with obscure ways to get that working.
But yes, the WPF object model sucks fairly heavy. Inheriting 6 levels deep and using backdoors like a dependency property is offensive. Inheritance is hard, let's go shopping.
I would say to look at game engines. For the most part, OOP has a tendency to cause slight performance decreases, and the gaming industry is seemingly obsessed with eliminating minor slowdowns (and sometimes ignoring large ones). As such, their code, though usually written in a language that supports OOP, will end up using only those elements of OOP that are necessary for clean code / ease of maintenance that also balances performance.
EDIT:
Having said that, I don't know if I would really go look at Unreal. They do some strange things for the sake of making their content pipeline easier for developers... it makes their code... well, look if you really want to know.
One common overuse is forcing OOP in programs/scripts that take some input, turn it to output, then exit (and not receiving input from anywhere else during the process). Procedural way is much cleaner in these cases.
Typical example of this is forcing OOP in PHP scripts.
First a little background ...
In what follows, I use C,C++ and Java for coding (general) algorithms, not gui's and fancy program's with interfaces, but simple command line algorithms and libraries.
I started out learning about programming in Java. I got pretty good with Java and I learned to use the Java containers a lot as they tend to reduce complexity of book keeping while guaranteeing great performance. I intermittently used C++, but I was definitely not as good with it as with Java and it felt cumbersome. I did not know C++ enough to work in it without having to look up every single function and so I quickly reverted back to sticking to Java as much as possible.
I then made a sudden transition into cracking and hacking in assembly language, because I felt I was concentrated too much attention on a much too high level language and I needed more experience with how a CPU interacts with memory and whats really going on with the 1's and 0's. I have to admit this was one of the most educational and fun experiences I've had with computers to date.
For obviously reasons, I could not use assembly language to code on a daily basis, it was mostly reserved for fun diversions. After learning more about the computer through this experience I then realized that C++ is so much closer to the "level of 1's and 0's" than Java was, but I still felt it to be incredibly obtuse, like a swiss army knife with far too many gizmos to do any one task with elegance. I decided to give plain vanilla C a try, and I quickly fell in love. It was a happy medium between simplicity and enough "micromanagent" to not abstract what is really going on. However, I did miss one thing about Java: the containers. In particular, a simple container (like the stl vector) that expands dynamically in size is incredibly useful, but quite a pain to have to implement in C every time. Hence my code currently looks like almost entirely C with containers from C++ thrown in, the only feature I use from C++.
I'd like to know if its consider okay in practice to use just one feature of C++, and ignore the rest in favor of C type code?
The short answer is, "This is not really the most effective way to use C++."
When used correctly, the strong type system, the ability to pass by reference, and idioms like RAII make C++ programs more likely to be correct, readable, and maintainable.
No one can stop you from using the language the way you want to. But you may be limiting yourself by not learning and leveraging actual C++ features.
If you write code that other people will have to read and maintain, they will probably appreciate the use of "real C++" instead of "C with classes" (in the words of a previous commenter).
Seems fine to me. That's the only part of C++ that I really use as well.
Right now, I'm writing a number cruncher. There's no polymorphism, no control delegation, no interaction. <iostream> was a bottleneck so I rewrote I/O in C.
The functions are mostly inside one class which represents a work thread. So that's not so much OO as having thread-local variables.
As well as vector, I use <algorithms> pretty heavily. But the heavy-duty data structures are written in plain C. Mainly circular singly-linked lists, which can't even easily have distinct begin() and end(), meaning not only containers but sequences (and for-loops) are off-limits. And then templates help the preprocessor to generate the main inner loop.
The most natural way of solving your problem is probably right. You don't want solutions in search of a problem. Learning to use C++ is well and good, but object orientation is suited to some problems and not others.
On the other hand, using bsearch from stdlib.h in a C++ program would be wrong.
You should use C++ in whatever way makes the most sense for you.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
Lots of the answers to C++ questions here contain the response:
"You should be using boost::(insert
your favourite smart pointer here) or
even better boost::(insert your
favourite mega complex boost type
here)"
I'm not at all convinced that this is doing any favours to the questioners who, by and large, are obvious C++ novices. My reasons are as follows:
Using smart pointers without
understanding what is going on under
the hood is going to lead to a
generation of C++ programmers who
lack some of the basic skills of a
programmer. Pretty much this seems to
have happened in the Java field
already.
Deciding which type of smart pointer
to use depends very much on the
problem domain being addressed. This
is almost always missing from the
questions posted here, so simply
saying "use a shared pointer" is
likely to be at the least unhelpful
and possibly totally wrong.
Boost is not yet part of the C++
standard and may not be available on
the specific platform the questioner
is using. Installing it is a bit
painful (I just did it using Jam) and
is way overkill if all you want are a
few smart pointers.
If you are writing FOSS code, you
don't want the code to be heavily
dependent on external libraries that,
once again, your users may not have.
I've been put off using FOSS code on
a number of occasions simply because
of the Byzantine complexity of the
dependencies between libraries.
To conclude, I'm not saying don't recommend Boost, but that we should be more careful when doing so.
Few points:
Using anything without understanding is considered harmful. But it is only the ignorant technology user (and his manager) who gets burned in the end.
You don't have to install boost to get the smart pointers - they are header only. And installation itself is rather straightforward, in the simplest approach just typing one or two commands.
Many of the Boost libraries and solutions are present in TR1 or will be present in C++0x
You will always depend on external libraries... Try to choose the one that have a bright future in terms of maintenance and support.
Unless you want to roll-out your custom solution - which would have some advantages and disadvantages.
C++ is not a novice-friendly language. With apologies to Scott Meyers, a beginner isn't learning just one language with C++, but four:
The C parts
Object Oriented parts: classes, inheritance, polymorphism, etc.
The STL: containers, iterators, algorithms
Templates and metaprogramming
I would argue that if the beginner is already climbing this mountain, they should be pointed towards the more "modern" aspects of C++ from the start. To do otherwise means that the beginner will learn C-ish C++ with regular pointers, resource leaks, etc. Find themselves in a world of pain, and then discover Boost and other libraries as a way to stem the hurt.
It's a complicated picture no matter what, so why not point them in a direction that has a positive pay-off for the invested mental efort?
As for dependencies, a great deal of Boost is header-only. And Boost's liberal license should permit its inclusion in just about any project.
Do you know how the compiler works ? Do you know how the OS works ? Do you know how the processor works ? Do you know how electronics works ? Do you know how electricity works ?
At some point you are using a black box, the question is, "is my ignorance problematic for what I am currently doing?".
If you have the taste for knowledge that's a great thing - and I clearly consider that a plus when interviewing engineers - but don't forget the finality of your work : build systems that solve problems.
I disagree. No-one would suggest that you should dive in to smart pointers without a thorough understanding of what's going on behind the scenes, but used sensibly they can remove a whole host of common errors. Moreover, Boost is high-quality production code from which a C++ novice can learn a great deal, in terms of design as much as implementation. It's not all hugely complicated, either, and you can pick and choose the bits you need.
It's impossible to understand everything thoroughly all the time. So take the word of many professional C++ developers for it that many parts of boost are indeed very useful things to use in your day-to-day development.
The inclusion of quite a lot of boost in C++0X is testament that even the team that manages the evolution of the language thinks that boost is a Good Thing (tm)
C++ is a weird, tough language. It's relatively easy to learn compared to how incredibly hard it is to master. There's some really arcane stuff you can do with it. Boost::mpl builds on some of those arcane things. I love boost, but I cringe every time I see someone in my organisation use boost::mpl. The reason: even quite seasoned C++ developers have trouble wrapping their head around how it works, and the code that uses it often reflects that (it ends up looking like someone banged code out until it worked). This is not a good thing, so I partially agree that some parts of boost should not be used without caution (boost::spirit is another example).
The C++ standard is also a weird thing. Most common compilers don't implement all of the existing standard (e.g. template exports). It's only a guideline of what to expect.
If your developer doesn't have the savvy to decide which smart pointer to use in a particular situation, perhaps they shouldn't be messing around in that part of the code without senior guidance.
There are always external libraries, starting with the run-time. A lot of boost is header-only so it does not introduce new external dependencies.
Quite frankly, for beginners I think boost isn't that well-suited. I think a beginner is better off understanding how the basics work before moving up the food chain using higher level tool/libs like boost or even STL. At the beginner stage it is not about productivity, it is about understanding. I think knowing how pointers work, being able for instance to manually create a linked list or sort one are part of the fundamentals that each programmer should learn.
I think boost is a great library. I love it. My favourite library is boost::bind and boost::function, which make function pointers much more flexible and easy-to-use. It fits in very well with different frameworks and keeps the code tidy.
I also use different Boost classes. For example, I use boost::graph to create graph classes and I use boost::filesystem for working with files inside directories.
However, boost is very complex. You need to be an experienced programmer to know its worth. Moreover, you need to have atleast some experience in C++ to understand how Boost works and implications of using Boost here or there.
Therefore, I would highly recommend looking at Boost for experienced programmers, especially if they are trying to re-invent the wheel (again). It can really be what it says on the tin: a boost towards your goal.
However, if you feel that the person asking a question is a beginner and tries to understand (for example) memory allocation, telling him to try boost smart pointers is a very bad idea. It's not helpful at all. The advantages of smart pointer classes, etc. can be comprehended only when the person experienced how standard memory allocation techniques work.
To finish off, Boost is not like learning to drive a car with automatic gearbox. It's like learning to drive on a F1 racing car.
I fully agree with you. It is the reason that i first explain them how it should be done (i.e when recommending boost::variant, i explain they should in general use a discriminated union. And i try not to say it's just a "magic boost thing" but show how they in principle implemented it. When i recommend boost::shared_ptr, i explain they would need to use a pointer - but it's better to use a smart pointer that has shared ownership semantics.). I try not to say just "use boost::xxx" when i see the questioner is a beginner. It is a language that's not just as simple to use as some scripting language. One has to understand the stuff one uses, because the language does not protect the programmer from doing bad things.
Of course it's not possible for novices to understand everything from the start on. But they should understand what their boost library solves and how it does it basically.
You can't compare this with learning processors or assembly language first. Similar it's not important to know how the bit-pattern of a null-pointer looks like. Knowledge of those are irrelevant in learning programming with C++. But pointers, array or any other basic things in C++ is not. One doesn't get around learning them before using [boost|std]::shared_ptr or [boost|std]::array successfully. These are things that has to be understood first in order to use the boost utilities successfully in my opinion. It's not about details like how to manually implement the pimpl-idiom using raw pointers - that's not the point I'm making. But the point is that one should first know basic things about pointers or the other parts a boost library helps with (for pointers, what they are and what they are good for, for example). Just look at the shared_ptr manual and try to get it without knowing about pointers. It's impossible.
And it's important to always point them to the appropriate boost manual. Boost manuals are high quality.
The consensus among almost all the answers is that boost is very valuable for experienced developers and for complex, real world, C++ software. I completely agree.
I also think that boost can be very valuable for beginners. Isn't it easier to use lexical_cast than to use ostringstream? Or to use BOOST_FOREACH instead of iterator syntax? The big problem is lack of good documentation of boost, especially for beginners. What is needed is a book that will tell you how to start with boost, which libraries are simple libraries that simplify tasks, and which libraries are more complex. Using these libraries together with good documentation will IMO make learning C++ easier.
We should encourage the use of standard canned libraries (and Boost is almost as standard as they get) whenever possible.
Some people seem to think that beginners should be taught the C side of C++ first, and then introduced to the higher-level stuff later. However, people tend to work as they're trained, so we're going to see a lot of production code written with badly managed raw pointers (well-managed raw pointers are awfully difficult sometimes), arrays (and the inevitable confusion between delete and delete []), and stuff like that. I've worked with code like that. I don't want to do it again any more than I have to.
Start beginners off with the way you want them writing code. This means teaching them about the STL containers and algorithms and some of the Boost libraries at first, so the first thing they think about when needing a group of things is a vector<>. Then teach them the lower-level constructs, so they'll know about them (or where to look them up) when they encounter them, or on the very rare occasions when they need to micro-optimize.
There's basically two types of programmers: the coders, who should be taught languages the way they should be writing them, and the enthusiast, who will learn the low-level stuff, including principles of operating systems, C, assembly code, and so on. Both are well served by learning the language they're going to use up front, while only the enthusiasts will be well served by learning from some arbitrary level of fundamentals.
I think you are mixing a lot of different concerns, not all of them related to Boost specifically:
First, should programmers (or C++ novices specifically) be encouraged to use libraries, idioms, paradigms, languages or language features they don't understand?
No, of course not. Every programmer should understand the tools they use, especially in a language like C++. However, I don't see a lot of questions here on SO where people are encouraged to not understand the code they're using. When people say they want to do X in C++, I think it's find to say "Boost has an implementation of X which works, which is more than a homebrewed solution would do, so use that".
Of course if the question is "how does X work", the question can't be answered with "use Boost's implementation". But I really don't see the problem in recommending Boost for the former kind of questions.
I also don't see how it's even possible to use Boost without understanding what's going on under the hood. C++, with or without Boost, is not Java. Using Boost in no way protects you from the complexities of the language. You still have to worry about copy constructors, pointer arithmetics, templates and everything else that can blow up in your face.
This is nothing like what happened in Java. They designed a language that removed all the subtleties. Boost doesn't do that. Quite the contrary, it has pioneered new idioms and techniques in generic programming. Using Boost is not always simple.
About the availability of Boost, I think that's a non-issue. It is available on the platforms used in the vast majority of questions, and if they're not able to use Boost, the suggestion is still not harmful, just useless.
Further, most Boost libraries are header-only and don't require you to install the whole thing. If you only want smart pointers, simply include those headers and nothing else.
About FOSS, you have a point in some cases But I'd say this is a problem for less universal libraries that users do not have. But Boost is extremely common, and if people don't have it, they should get it, as it is applicable to pretty much any problem domain. And of course, the license is compatible with any FOSS project you care to mention.
I'd rather work on a OSS project that used Boost to do the heavy lifting than one which reinvented its own (buggy and proprietary) wheels, with steep learning curves that could have been avoided.
So yeah, in some cases, recommending Boost is unhelpful. But I don't see how it can be harmful.
In any case, I don't see how it can be even half as harmful as teaching novices to roll their own. In C++, that's a recipe for disaster. It's the sole reason why C++ still has a reputation for being error-prone and produce buggy software. Because for far too long, people wrote everything from scratch themselves, distrusting the standard library, distrusting 3rd party code, distrusting everything that wasn't legal in C.
I'm not at all convinced that this is doing any favours to the questioners who, by and large, are obvious C++ novices. ...:
Using smart pointers without understanding what is going on under the hood is going to lead to a generation of C++ programmers who lack some of the basic skills of a programmer.
Do we tell novice programmers that they must learn assembly language before they get to read up on modern programming languages? They clearly don't know what's going on under the hood otherwise.
Should "Hello World" include an implementation of the I/O subsystem?
Personally I learned how to construct objects before I learned how to write classes. I think I learned how to use STL vectors before I learned C-style arrays. I think it's the right approach: "here's how to refer to several nearly identical variables using a std::vector, later I'll show you what's swept under the rug via C-style arrays and new[] and delete[]."
I disagree. Of course you will always know more about the internal workings of everything when coding it from scratch than when using 3rd party libraries. But time and money are limited, and using good 3rd party libraries such as boost is a very good way to save your resources.
I can see your point, but understanding something does not mean that you have to rewrite everything from scratch.
They are not "standard" but they are as standard as a library can get.
It is true that deploying them can be painful (but not all of the sublibraries require compilation); on the other hand they do not have further dependencies on their own, so I wouldn't be too worried about that part neither.
I agree with you, high level libraries hide things from you. It might be a good idea in the short run, but in the long run, the novice will have severe gaps in their understanding of the language.
It's easy for us non-novices to say "just use this library" because we've been down that long hard road of learning things the hard way, and naturally we want to save someone else the trouble of doing the same.
Novices SHOULD have to struggle with rolling their own low-level solutions to problems. And then, when they've got a better understanding of how their own solution worked, they can use the third-party solution, confident that they have some idea of what's going on under the hood. They'll use that library better!
I think this is a broader subject than just being about Boost. I completely regret picking up VB as my first language. If I had just started with ugly, hard to learn c, I'd be years ahead of where I am now.
I would agree with the point about smart pointers. I am a C++ beginner, and when asking a simple question about pointer syntax, one answer suggested smart pointers were the way to go. I know I'm not ready for boost (I'm not really ready for the STL either), so in most cases I steer myself away from that type of suggestion.
Scoped and dynamic resource ownership are general basic neeeds and boost's implementation of'em is very good an highly recommended. I use them a lot and they work fine.
Boost is a great library. I really hope that it grows in breadth and acceptance. Use it, extend it, and promote it.
One of the great things about the .NET community is that it has a great base class library. One of the fundemental problems with C++, I believe, is the minimalistic C++ standard library. Anywhere you go to develop code, FOSS or corporate, there is some selection of libraries that are used since there isn't a broad standard library. So you end up being a INSERT_YOUR_COMPANY_HERE C++ programmer and not necessarily too transferrable. Yes, you design/architecture skills transfer, but there is the learning curve with picking up familiarity with whatever set of libraries the next place is using. Where as a .NET developer will basically be using the same class library and can hit the ground running. Also, the libraries that are built (and reused) have a broader base to build on.
Just as an aside, you can use http://codepad.org for a code paste bin and it supports boost!
I have worked for companies who have viewed boost as library to avoid due in part to its past reputation as a poorly managed project. I know things have changed with the project, but commercial projects who want to use boost must be aware of the source of the code contained in the library, or at least be assured that they're not going to be liable for IP or patent infringements.
Sadly, the library has this reputation and it will take a while for it to break before it sees wide use in the commercial sector. I also feel this is a reason not to recommend it blindly.
It is a university task in my group to write a compiler of C-like language. Of course I am going to implement a small part of our beloved C++.
The exact task is absolutely stupid, and the lecturer told us it need to be self-compilable (should be able to compile itself) - so, he meant not to use libraries such as Boost and STL. He also does not want us to use templates because it is hard to implement.
The question is - is it real for me, as I`m going to write this project on my own, with the deadline at the end of May - the middle of June (this year), to implement not only templates, but also nested classes, namespaces, virtual functions tables at the level of syntax analysis?
PS I am not noobie in C++
Stick to doing a C compiler.
Believe me, it's hard enough work building a decent C compiler, especially if its expected to compile itself. Trying to support all the C++ features like nested classes and templates will drive you insane. Perhaps a group could do it, but on your own, I think a C compiler is more than enough to do.
If you are dead set on this, at least implement a C-like language first (so you have something to hand in). Then focus on showing off.
"The exact task is absolutely stupid" - I don't think you're in a position to make that judgment fairly. Better to drop that view.
"I`m going to write this project on my own" - you said it's a group project. Are you saying that your group doesn't want to go along with your view that it should morph into C++, so you're taking off and working on your own? There's another bit I'd recommend changing.
It doesn't matter how knowledgable you are about C++. Your ability with grammars, parsers, lexers, ASTs, and code generation seems far more germane.
Without knowing more about you or the assignment, I'd say that you'd be doing well to have the original assignment done by the end of May. That's three months away. Stick to the assignment. It might surprise you with its difficulty.
If you finish early, and fulfill your obligation to your team, I'd say you should feel free to modify what's produced to add C++ features.
I'll bet it took Bjarne Stroustrup more than three months to add objects to C. Don't overestimate yourself or underestimate the original assignment.
No problem. And while you're at it, why not implement an operating system for it to run on too.
Follow the assignment. Write a compiler for a C-like language!
What I'd do is select a subset of C. Remove floating-point datatypes and every other feature that isn't necessary in building your compiler.
Writing a C compiler is a lot of work. You won't be able to do that in a couple of months.
Writing a C++ compiler is downright insane. You wouldn't be able to do that in 5 years.
I will like to stress a few points already mentioned and give a few references.
1) STICK TO THE 1989 ANSI C STANDARD WITH NO OPTIMIZATION.
2) Don't worry, with proper guidance, good organization and a fair amount of hard work this is doable.
3) Read the The C Programming Language cover to cover.
4) Understand important concepts of compiler development from the Dragon Book.
5) Take a look at lcc both the code as well as the book.
6) Take a look at Lex and Yacc (or Flex and Bison)
7) Writing a C compiler (up to the point it can self compile) is a rite of passage ritual among programmers. Enjoy it.
For a class project, I think that requiring the compiler to be able to compile itself is a bit much to ask. I assume that this is what was meant by stupid in the question. It means that you need to figure out in advance exactly how much of C you are going to implement, and stick to that in building the compiler. So, building a symbol table using primitives rather than just using an STL map. This might be useful for a data structure course, but misses the point for a compiler course. It should be about understanding the issues involved with the compiler, and chosing which data structures to use, not coding the data structures.
Building a compiler is a wonderful way to really understand what happens to your code once the compiler get a hold of it. What is the target language? When I took compilers, it took 3 of us all semester to build a compiler to go from sorta-pascal to assembly. Its not a trivial task. Its one of those things that seems simple at first, but the more you get into it, the more complicated things get.
You should be able to complete c-like language within the time frame. Assuming you are taking more than 1 course, that is exactly what you might be able to do in time. C++ is also doable but with a lot more extra hours to put it. Expecing to do c++ templates/virtual functions is overexpecting yourself and you might fail in the assignment all together. So it's better stick with a c subset compiler and finish it in time. You should also consider the time it takes for QA. If you want to be thorough QA itself will also take good time.
Namespaces or nested clases, either virtual functions are at syntax level quite simple, its just one or two more rules to parser. It is much more complicated at higher levels, at deciding, which function / class choose (name shadowing, ambiguous names between namespaces, etc.), or when compiling to bytecode/running AST. So - you may be able to write these, but if isn't necessary, skip it, and write just bare functional model.
If you are talking about a complete compiler, with code generation, then forget it. If you just intend to do the lexical & syntactic analysis side of things, then some form of templating may just about be doable in the time frame, depending on what compiler building tools you use.
I'm a programmer with 2 years experience, I worked in 4 places and I really think of myself as a confident, and fluent developer.
Most of my colleagues have CS degrees, and I don't really feel any difference! However, to keep up my mind on the same stream with these guys, I studied C (read beginning C from novice to professional), DataStructures with C, and also OOP with C++.
I have a reasonable understanding of pointers, memory management, and I also attended a scholarship which C, DataStructures, and C++ were a part of it.
I want to note that my familiarity with C and C++ does not exceed reading some pages, and executing some demos; I haven't worked on any project using C or C++.
Lately a friend of mine advised me to learn C, and C++ extensively, and then move to OpenGL and learn about graphics programming. He said that the insights I may gain by learning these topics will really help me throughout my entire life as a programmer.
PS: I work as a full-time developer mostly working on ASP.NET applications using C#.
Recommendations?
For practical advancement:
From a practical sense, pick a language that suites the domain you want to work in.
There is no need to learn C nor C++ for most programming spaces. You can be a perfectly competent programmer without writing a line of code in those languages.
If however you are not happy working in the exact field you are in now, you can learn C or C++ so that you may find a lower level programming job.
Helping you be a better programmer:
You can learn a lot from learning multiple languages though. So it is always good to broaden your horizons that way.
If you want more experience in another language, and have not tried it yet, I would recommend to learn a functional programming language such as Scheme, Lisp, or Haskell.
First, having a degree has nothing to do with knowing C++. I know several people who graduated from CS without ever writing more than 50 lines of C/C++. CS is not about programming (in the same sense that surgery is not about knives), and it certainly isn't about individual languages. A CS degree requires you to poke your nose into several different languages, on your way to somewhere else. CS teaches the underlying concepts, an understanding of compilers, operating systems, the hardware your code is running on, algorithms and data structures and many other fascinating subjects. But it doesn't teach programming. Whatever programming experience a CS graduate has is almost incidental. It's something he picked up on the fly, or because of a personal interest in programming.
Second, let's be clear that it's very possible to have a successful programming career without knowing C++. In fact, I'd expect that most programmers fall into this category. So you certainly don't need to learn C++.
That leaves two possible reasons to learn C++:
Self-improvement
Changing career track
#2 is simple. If you want to transition to a field where C++ is the dominant language, learning it would obviously be a good idea. You mentioned graphics programming as an example, and if you want to do that for a living, learning C++ will probably be a good idea. (however, I don't think it's a particularly good suggestion for "insights that will help throughout your live as a programmer". There are other fields that are much more generally applicable. Learning graphics programming will teach you graphics programming, and not much else.)
That leaves #1, which is a bit more interesting. Will you become a better programmer simply by knowing C++? Perhaps, but not as much as some may think. There are several useful things that C++ may teach you, but there also seems to be a fair bit of superstition about it: it's low-level and has pointers, so by learning C++, you will achieve enlightenment.
If you want to understand what goes on under the hood, C or C++ will be helpful, sure, but you could cut out the middle man and just go directly into learning about compilers. That'd give you an even better idea. Supplement that with some basic information on how CPU's work, and a bit about operating systems as well, and you've learned all the underlying stuff much better than you would from C++.
However, some things I believe are worth picking up from C++, in no particular order:
(several of them are likely to make you despair at C#, which, despite adopting a lot of brilliant features, is still missing out some that to a C++ programmer seems blindingly obvious)
Paranoia: Becoming good at C++ implies becoming a bit of a language lawyer. The language leaves a lot of things undefined or unspecified, so a good C++ programmer is paranoid. "The code I just wrote looks ok, and it seems to be have ok when I run it - but is it well-defined by the standard? Will it break tomorrow, on his computer, or when I compile with an updated compiler? I have to check the standard". That's less necessary in other languages, but it may still be a healthy experience to carry with you. Sometimes, the compiler doesn't have the final word.
RAII: C++ has pioneered a pretty clever way to deal with resource management (including the dreaded memory management). Create an object on the stack, which in its constructor acquires the resource in question (database connection, chunk of memory, a file, a network socket or whatever else), and in its destructor ensures that this resource is released. This simple mechanism means that you virtually never write new/delete in your top level code, it is always hidden inside constructors or destructors. And because destructors are guaranteed to execute when the object goes out of scope, even if an exception is thrown, your resource is guaranteed to be released. No memory leaks, no unclosed database connections. C# doesn't directly support this, but being familiar with the technique sometimes lets you see a way to emulate it in C#, in the cases where it's useful. (Obviously memory management isn't a concern, but ensuring that database connections are released quickly might still be)
Generic programming, templates, the STL and metaprogramming: The C++ standard library (or the part of it commonly known as the STL) is a pretty interesting example of library design. In some ways, it is lightyears ahead of .NET or Java's class libraries, although LINQ has patched up some of the worst shortcomings of .NET. Learning about it might give you some useful insights into clever ways to work with sequences or sets of data. It also has a strong flavor of functional programming, which is always nice to poke around with. It's implemented in terms of templates, which are another remarkable feature of C++, and template metaprogramming may be beneficial to learn about as well. Not because it is directly applicable to many other languages, but because it might give you some ideas for writing more generic code in other languages as well.
Straightforward mapping to hardware: C++ isn't necessarily a low level language. But most of its abstractions have been modelled so that they can be implemented to map directly to common hardware features. That means it might help provide a good understanding of the "magic" that occurs between your managed .net code and the CPU at the other end. How is the CLR implemented, what do the heap and stack actually mean, and so on.
p/invoke: Let's face it, sometimes, .NET doesn't offer the functionality you need. You have to call some unmanaged code. And then it's useful to actually know the language you might be using. (if you can get around it with just a single pinvoke call, you only need to be able to read C function signatures on MSDN so you know which arguments to pass, but sometimes, it may be preferable to write your own C++ wrapper, and call into that instead.
I don't know if you should learn C++. There are valid reasons why doing so may make you a better programmer, but then again, there are plenty of other things you could spend your time on that would also make you a better programmer. The choice is yours. :)
Experience is the best teacher.
While you can read about things like memory management, data structures (and their implementations), algorithms, etc., you won't really get it until you've had a chance to put it in to practice. While I don't know if it's truly necessary to use C or C++ to learn these things I would put some effort into actually writing some code that manages its own memory and implements some common data structures. I think you'll learn things that will help you to understand your code better; to know what's really going on under the hood, so to speak. I would also recommend reading up on computer organization and operating systems, computer security, and boolean logic. On the other hand, I've never really found a need to do any OpenGL programming, though I did do some X Windows stuff once upon a time.
Having degree has got nothing to do with C/C++ actually. Now, stuff like big O() estimation, data structures or even mathematical background. For example linear algebra results very useful, even in context that seemingly have nothing to do (eg. search engines).
For example typical error that a good coder, but without any theoretical knowledge, might commit is to try to solve NP-complete problems by exact algorithm, rather than approximation.
Now, why in universities they teach you C/C++? Because it let's you see how it's all working "under the hood". You get opportunity to see how call stack works, how memory management works, how pointers work. Of course you don't need that knowledge to use most modern languages. But you need that to understand how their "magic" works. Eg. you can't understand how GC works, if you got no idea about pointers and memory allocation.
I've often asked this question (to myself). I think the more general version is, "how can I call myself a programmer if I don't know how to kick around a language that doesn't have automatic garbage collection, with pointers and all that 'complex' stuff'?" I've never learned C++ except to do a few HelloWorlds, so my answer is limited by that lack:
I think that the feeling that you need to learn C++ (or assembler, really) comes from the feeling that you're always working on someone else's abstractions: the "rocket scientists" who write the JVM, CLR, whatever. So if you can get to a lower level language, you'll really know what you're talking about. I think this is quite wrong. One is always building on a set of abstractions: even Assembler is translated into binary, which can be learned as well. And beyond that, you still couldn't make a computer out of firewood, even if you had a pair of pliers and a bit of titanium.
In my experience as a corporate trainer in software dev (in Java, mostly), the best people were not those who knew C++, but rather those that took the language that they are working in as an independent space for "play." Although memory management comes up all the time in C# and Java, you never have to think about anything beyond freeing your object from references (and a few other cliche places, like using streams instead of throwing around huge objects in memory). Pointers and all that stuff do not help you there, except as a right of passage (and a good one, I'm sure).
So in summary, work in the language you're in and branch out into as many relevant things as possible. These days I find myself dipping into Javascript though the APIs are supposed to make this unecessary, and doing some stuff in Fireworks while I mess with CSS by hand. And this is all in addition to the development I'm really doing in RoR, PHP and Actionscript. So my point is: focus on abstractions that you need, because they're more likely to be relevant than the lower-level stuff that underlies your platform.
Edit: I made some slight changes in response to jalf's comments, thanks.
I have a 1st class Software Engineering degree and work for a large console manufacturer developing a game engine in a team of programmers all of whom program across a wide range of languages from Asm to C++ to C# to LUA and know the hardware inside out.
I would say that 5% of my degree was useful and that by far and away the most important trait to furthering my career has been enthusiam and self development.
In fact many of the colleagues I've worked with haven't had a degree and on average have probably been the better ones.
I'd say this is because they've had to replace that piece of paper from a university degree with actual working code that they've developed in thier own spare time learning the skills off thier own back rather than being spoon fed it.
My driving instructor use to tell me that I would only start learning how to drive after I pass my test ie you only really learn from the practical application of the basics. A CS degree gives you the basics which if you've had a job programming any of the major languages for 6 months you will already have. A degree just opens up doors that you may not have otherwise - it doesn't help that much once inside the door.
Knowing how the software interacts with the hardware by the sounds of it is the most important area for you at the moment only then does the 'mystery' or 'magic' really disappear and you can be confident of what your talking about else where. Learning C and C++ will undoubtedbly help in this respect as will knowing an API like OpenGL.
But I'd say the most important thing is to find something you have interest in and code that. If you have real enthusiam for it you will naturally learn more low level information and become a better programmer, if indeed that is what your definition of being a better programmer is!
I've been working as a developer with no degree for almost 15 years now. I started with Ada and moved quickly into C/C++, but it's been my experience that there will always be some language that you "have to learn." If it's not C++, it will be C# or C or Java or Lisp. My advice is make sure you're solid on the basics that apply to any language(my best friend as a dev with no degree was the CLR book), and you should be able to move relatively easily between languages and frameworks.
You don't absolutely have to learn C/C++, but both languages will teach you to think about how your software interacts with the underlying OS and hardware, which is a essential skill. You say that you already know about pointers, memory management and so on, which is great. Many programmers without a CS degree lack this important knowledge.
Another good reason to learn C/C++ is that there's a lot of code written in these languages and a good way to learn more about programming is to read other people's code. If you're interested in writing low level code like drivers, OS, file systems and the like C/C++ is pretty much the only way to go.
Do you have to learn it extensively? I expect not.
However it's best to always be learning things that help you look at programming from a different perspective. Learning C or C++ are worth it for the insight into how things work at a lower level. For C and C++ programmers the same thing might be accomplished by learning assembly. Most people won't use assembly in a project, but knowing how it works can be very helpful from time to time.
My recommendation is always to learn as much as you can. If you're not working on a C++ project in the near future I wouldn't be too worried about learning the ins and outs, but it's always good to be able to look at problems from another angle and learning new languages is one way to do that.
Today for the majority of applications, C and C++ can be viewed as an academic exercise: "How can we write programs without garbage collection?"
The answer is: you can, but it's a mostly painful experience. Most of the details of best practices in C++ are related to the lack of garbage collection.
Given the brilliant performance of modern GCs, and the general increase in computing power, even cell phones have GCs these days. And in a platform with a GC, you can always code in such a way as to limit the pressure you put on the GC.
Listen or read SO podcast 44, where Joel plays his favorite song Write in C
Spolsky: Yeah, it's not paying the proper royalties to the Beatles anyway. We'll link to that from the shownotes. Awesome song, Write in C.
Atwood: That's right, Joel's favourite song. Write everything in C, because Joel does in fact write everything in C, don't you, Joel?
Spolsky: I started using a little bit of C99, the latest version of C, which let you declare variables after you written some statements.
...
Without a professional reason (other than the good practice of self-improvement) to learn C or C++, then you should have a passionate side project planned out that you could write in C or C++. Once the going gets tough on the side project, you'll need your enthusiasm and curiosity to take you over the hump (since on a side project, you naturally don't have the motivation of pay or de-motivation of a superior looming over you).
Also, most CS degrees are using Java as their language of choice now. This just proves the point that experience gained in the language of choice and exposure to some of the theory involved in the other classes in the degree is the main benefit for people with CS degrees, and not so much the specific language (though I think the higher they go up the abstraction scale, the worse it is for the students in the long run).
Without a practical reason for learning a programming language it is pretty hard going.
If you can think of particular problems or a specific task which the language is suit for - Then the learning experience is driven by needs, rather than simple academics.
I only just recently switched from VB to C# (1 month ago) while not as significantly different as a switch from C# to C, because I switch for a particular reason I found it much easier to learn. I had dabbled previous without a specific problem to solve, needless to say I switched back
If you have a different style of learning as in self-taught then my recommendation to be a better programmer is to research topics regarding your domain. From bottom to top, slowly climb up the ladder.There is a fairly amount of different programmers, no one will excel in all, so don't start off with that context in mind.
Best of luck to you.
C++ is just a programming language. What you don't have that other students (if they paid attention in class) have is the deeper understanding that comes through studying concepts.
Being a programmer is not and should not be the end goal of any CS graduate. However it is as far as most people get without such a degree.
Here is an analogy: An engineer and an architect both at some point learn to draft buildings using CAD. Also, someone completely untrained can come in and start work using CAD and be very effective. This is a good career and it pays well, but for both the engineer and the architect it is not where you want to be when you are 30.
One value of knowing C is that many other languages including C#, Java, C++, JavaScript, Python, and PHP have their roots in C syntax.
Another value, and arguably more important, is that it will build your confidence. Programmers are a confident group and very optimistic (you have to be confident to think that you can write the equivalent of a 1000 page book without a single spelling or grammatical error). And confidence in your ability to learn and effectively use any language will grow considerably with a pure C application or two under your belt.
So write a non trivial program in C; something that at least reads and writes files, allocates and deallocates memory, and manages a data structure like a queue or binary tree.
Your confidence will thank you.