Related
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.
How should I learn C++? I hear that the language gives enough rope to shoot myself in the head, so should I treat every C++ line I write as a potential minefiled?
How should I learn C++?
Refer to:
Books to refer for learning OOP through C++
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/631793/good-book-to-learn-c-from
The Definitive C++ Book Guide and List
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1122921/suggested-c-books
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1686906/what-is-a-very-practical-c-book
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/681551/a-c-book-that-covers-non-syntax-related-problems
I hear that the language gives enough
rope to shoout myself in the head, so
should I treat every C++ line I write
as a potential minefiled?
A C++ statement can do either what you want it to do, or something else. This depends on your understanding of what that C++ statement means. But this is not specific to this language.
By learning the language, and using techniques for building correct software (like Object Oriented design, especially Design by Contract, and testing techniques), you will be able to guarantee that your program behaves as you intended it to.
I love your metaphor! What Stroustrup actually said was:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bjarne_Stroustrup
C makes it easy to shoot yourself in
the foot; C++ makes it harder, but
when you do it blows your whole leg
off.
This was many years ago. I started learning C++ in ca. 1991 and it really was a minefield. There were no common libraries, no debuggers and the AT&T approach used a C code generator. There are now many good IDEs which support C++.
Personally I moved to Java because I find it a cleaner language but C++ is fine as long as you don't try to be tricky. Avoid native C constructs where there are existing class libraries (Stroustrup initially did not provide a String class as he though it a useful "rite of passage" to have to write one!) Now you can use a proven one.
I'm assuming you have no choice in the language. How you go about it depends on where you are coming from. C++ is not the easiest of the object-oriented languages to start on and Stroustrup's book is not necessarily the best intro.
UPDATE the OP is worried about blowing themselves up when learning the language. Generally it's a good idea to start with a subset of what one will do later. I assumed the OP is worried about:
Things which you have to know and use whatever level you program at (such as destructors)
Things which add additional complexity to the learning process and can be shelved until later (such as multiple inheritance)
what follows are some places where I blew myself up... They are not subjective, they happened!
There are some up-front gotchas that don't exist in Java or C#.
destructors. You have to manage your own memory. Failing to write destructors will blow your fingers and toes off.
equality. You will have to write an equals method (in simple Java you may get away without it)
copy constructor. Ditto. a = b will invoke this. Bites you in the bottom.
And I'd suggest avoiding multiple inheritance unless you really need it. Then avoid it anyway.
And avoid operator overloading. It looks cute to write:
vector1 = vector2 + vector3;
but
vector1 = vector2.plus(vector3);
is just as clear, only a few more characters, and you can search for it.
Well, it's not a minefield.
Really, the most problems are related to anything related to pointers, so you'll have to understand them (which it's not easy at first) and be careful when using them.
I think it's more a question of experience, having all the basics clear and trying to get a clear design since the beggining.
More than a minefield, I think it's like going to the most dangeours neighbourhood in your town. Yes, it's dangerous, but only for the ones without the attitude. :-D
I would say that that C++ is a challenging environment, if not a minefield. The fundamental issue is that problem symptoms and problem causes are not always easy to tie up. As Khelben has said one major reason for that is that we have pointers to deal with and hence we can do quite a lot of damage when pointers are not pointing where we think they are.
So you need to pay special attention when dealing with arrays and pointers, out-by-one errors can result in memory corruption and these then result in interesting problem manifestations.
Every formal language is a minefield. There're less mines in managed environments. For instance, in C# if you overblow an array you won't cause someone else's remote function to do strange things. You won't have code run differently in tests and prod because someone forgot to initialize a variable in constructor.
However, these are the easy ones. You learn to avoid them, and then you stay with the real mines, which are there in every language.
More specifically, these are some of the most important points when moving to C++:
always initialize variables. even theoretical possibility of having your program logic depend on what was in the memory beforehand is a nightmare.
dependencies: avoid data members of other compound types (classes) without pimpl idiom. This will make your users exposed to the inner workings of the types you use, and increase compilation time dramatically. Dependencies are your enemy.
in C++, you can optimize for performance in ridiculously huge number of ways. don't. Unless you are in the innermost loop of a heavy math software, and even then don't.
avoid DLLs on windows. They don't work with singletons, causing problems to popular libraries.
use boost, shared pointers whenever you can. avoid reinventing the wheel and regular pointers.
use std::string, smart containers instead of arrays. These are dangerous. It will be faster than managed containers anyway.
use RAII. This one is priceless.
prefer data members to inheritance, or you will expose the base type definition to your type's users.
learn to avoid nested includes with forward declarations.
How should I learn C++?
depends. where are you coming from? anyway, I'd suggest:
use an up-to-date compiler such as gcc-4.4 or 4.5
C++0x is worth it for the type inference alone (local variables don't need explicit type designations)
write small, standalone, short-lived utilities (try porting such tools written in other languages)
STL has complex parts, but the basic things are easy, don't shy away from it. FMPOV it embodies the spirit of C++
use state-of-the-art C++ libraries: stuff like Boost.Foreach, Boost.Tuple, Boost.Regex or Boost.Optional turn C++ into serious competition in the scripting department
when you're comfortable:
learn to generalize your code with templates
learn to use RAII
then:
add C libraries to the mix. this might be the first time you'll need to tinker with pointers and casts!
add OOP if you feel like it
should I treat every C++ line I write as a potential minefiled?
be cautious, but don't worry too much. it's true that you can't know what a + b means without knowing the whole program containing such an expression because of operator overloads and argument-dependent lookup, and I've seen many people whine about it. a killing counter-argument is that you cannot really know what a->plus(b) does in Java or a scripting language in the face of inheritance: all methods are virtual, yoyo effect in extremis! (this does kill me in large codebases with rampant inheritance written in languages w/o ADL or operator overloading!)
anecdotes from my experience learning basics of C and C++:
C: unless you do something really, really, really stupid, the program will compile just fine, and SIGSEGV or SIGBUS as soon as you run it
C++: unless you do something really, really, really "clever", the program will either fail to compile, or compile and do what you mean (a mantra Perl "inherited" from Interlisp as I've been told).
a ranty post scriptum:
C++ can be used as a much higher-level language than C: whereas you can't do almost anything beyond simple arithmetic without pointers in C, it's possible to write complete programs in C++ without a pointer in sight, save for char **argv.
there's a whole class of programs that can be implemented in C++ using it as a "scripting" language with unparalleled runtime speed and simple runtime environment (the "dll hell" is nothing compared to the volatility of real scripting languages).
however, the "scripting language" cloak is a leaky abstraction: it's built from native C++ mechanisms such as ADL, operator overloading and templates, and that has its price. get ready for abysmal compile times and unintelligible error messages. OTOH, at least the error messages can be greatly improved with tools like STLfilt, and I think it's well worth it overall.
one thing where C++ really shines in contrast to environments such as Java (perhaps C# too? don't know that one that well) is destructors (vs finalizers and GC). it's one of the pillars of the "scriptiness" of the language. whereas GC adds a whole level of semantic complexity (things don't cease to exist as soon as they're inaccessible from the program) and syntactic verbiage and duplication (finally), destructors are the workhorse of natural semantics and obviate code duplication that's unavoidable with finally.
BTW, "enough rope to shoot myself in the head" almost killed me. I think I'll borrow it. ;)
C++ has some pitfalls certainly, but writting safe code is certainly possible.
Some things to think about. There are far from the only things for writting safe C++ code but they seem like a good start.
Use std::string and std::vector to store strings and collections rather than C style strings and native arrays. They are much easier to get right.
When you allocate an object using new always think about who owns the pointer to this memory and is responsible for deleting it. If you can't think of a single owner for the data that manages it's lifetime, then either rethink your design or think about using a "smart pointer" to manage the lifetime.
Prefer indexing into arrays rather than using pointer arithmetic where possible. Whenever you index into an array every time ask your self "How do I know that this index can only index a valid index in the array".
If a class has a pointer to some data then write methods to act on that data. Don't write methods that return that pointer or at some point you'll end up using the pointer after the data has been deleted. (Not always possible but something to aim for)
If you write simple code that uses strings and vectors and as much as possible encapsule pointers as members of classes that both manage the lifetime of the data and provide the methods that act on that data then that's a good strarting point.
As others have said, read effective c++ and other books.
In C++, foot shoots YOU.
The question is do you need it for anything? If you want to make game code, 3d tools, or something similar you pretty much have to have it. If not, you don't. The errors people are afraid of are seldom big killers but there are plenty of other things that will come up if you make a large enough project.
You may find this spoof interview with Bjarne Stroustrup to be enlightening:
http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/susan/joke/cpp.htm
The syntax of C++ is easy, just like Java or C# with pointers. So learning C++ is fast.
The hard thing is that when it comes to a project, C++ is harder to use and more error prone compared to Java or C#. It is just too flexible and the programmer is responsible for too many things.
In a 100 lines of code, you don't need to worry about memory and null pointers at all as you can find them quickly. But when it comes to 10000 lines of code, memory management could be hard. The exception mechanism in C++ is also weak. Thirdly, you need to worry the null pointer problem in C++ in a big project.
I look at the dilemma from a different perspective. The more discipline you have in development the faster you can develop quality robust code. Assembly requires more discipline than C. C requires more discipline than C++.
Don't worry about hanging yourself, blowing your foot or leg off. Just work on improving your quality develop process. For example, a code review will help regardless of the language. Unit testing and test frameworks will also save some bloodshed. Everything boils down to project deadlines and money.
I find myself always trying to fit everything into the OOP methodology, when I'm coding in C/C++. But I realize that I don't always have to force everything into this mold. What are some pros/cons for using the OOP methodology versus not? I'm more interested in the pros/cons of NOT using OOP (for example, are there optimization benefits to not using OOP?). Thanks, let me know.
Of course it's very easy to explain a million reasons why OOP is a good thing. These include: design patterns, abstraction, encapsulation, modularity, polymorphism, and inheritance.
When not to use OOP:
Putting square pegs in round holes: Don't wrap everything in classes when they don't need to be. Sometimes there is no need and the extra overhead just makes your code slower and more complex.
Object state can get very complex: There is a really good quote from Joe Armstrong who invented Erlang:
The problem with object-oriented
languages is they’ve got all this
implicit environment that they carry
around with them. You wanted a banana
but what you got was a gorilla holding
the banana and the entire jungle.
Your code is already not OOP: It's not worth porting your code if your old code is not OOP. There is a quote from Richard Stallman in 1995
Adding OOP to Emacs is not clearly an
improvement; I used OOP when working
on the Lisp Machine window systems,
and I disagree with the usual view
that it is a superior way to program.
Portability with C: You may need to export a set of functions to C. Although you can simulate OOP in C by making a struct and a set of functions who's first parameter takes a pointer to that struct, it isn't always natural.
You may find more reasons in this paper entitled Bad Engineering Properties
of Object-Oriented Languages.
Wikipedia's Object Oriented Programming page also discusses some pros and cons.
One school of thought with object-oriented programming is that you should have all of the functions that operate on a class as methods on the class.
Scott Meyers, one of the C++ gurus, actually argues against this in this article:
How Non-Member Functions Improve Encapsulation.
He basically says, unless there's a real compelling reason to, you should keep the function SEPARATE from the class. Otherwise the class can turn into this big bloated unmanageable mess.
Based on experiences in a previous large project, I totally agree with him.
A benefit of non-oop functionality is that it often makes exporting your functionality to different languages easier. For example a simple DLL containing only functions is much easier to use in C#, you can use the P/Invoke to simply call the C++ functions. So in this sense it can be useful for writing extremely time critical algorithms that fit nicely into single/few function calls.
OOP is used a lot in GUI code, computer games, and simulations. Windows should be polymorphic - you can click on them, resize them, and so on. Computer game objects should be polymorphic - they probably have a location, a path to follow, they might have health, and they might have some AI behavior. Simulation objects also have behavior that is similar, but breaks down into classes.
For most things though, OOP is a bit of a waste of time. State usually just causes trouble, unless you have put it safely in the database where it belongs.
I suggest you read Bjarne's Paper about Why C++ is not just an Object-Oriented Programming Language
If we consider, for a moment, not object-orienatation itself but one
of the keystones of object-orientation: encapsulation.
It can be shown that change-propagation probability cannot increase
with distance from the change: if A depends on B and B depends on C,
and we change C, then the probability that A will change
cannot be larger than the proabability that B will
change. If B is a direct dependency on C and A is an indirect
dependency on C, then, more generally, to minimise the potential cost
of any change in a system we must miminimise the potential number of
direct dependencies.
The ISO defines encapsulation as the property that the information
contained in an object is accessible only through interactions at the
interfaces supported by the object.
We use encapsulation to minimise the number of potential dependencies
with the highest change-propagation probability. Basically,
encapsulation mitigates the ripple effect.
Thus one reason not to use encapsulation is when the system is so
small or so unchanging that the cost of potential ripple effects is
negligible. This is also, therefore, a case when OO might not be used
without potentially costly consequences.
Well, there are several alternatives. Non-OOP code in C++ may instead be:
C-style procedural code, or
C++-style generic programming
The only advantages to the first are the simplicity and backwards-compatibility. If you're writing a small trivial app, then messing around with classes is just a waste of time. If you're trying to write a "Hello World", just call printf already. Don't bother wrapping it in a class. And if you're working with an existing C codebase, it's probably not object-oriented, and trying to force it into a different paradigm than it already uses is just a recipe for pain.
For the latter, the situation is different, in that this approach is often superior to "traditional OOP".
Generic programming gives you greater performance (among other things because you often avoid the overhead of vtables, and because with less indirection, the compiler is better able to inline), better type safety (because the exact type is known, rather than hiding it behind an interface), and often cleaner and more concise code as well (STL iterators and algorithms enable much of this, without using a single instance of runtime polymorphism or virtual functions.
OOP is little more than an aging buzzword. A methodology that everyone misunderstood (The version supported by C++ and Java has little to do with what OOP originally meant, as in SmallTalk), and then pretended was the holy grail. There are aspects to it that are useful, certainly, but it is often not the best approach for designing an application.
Rather, express the overall logic by other means, for example generic programming, and when you need a class to encapsulate some simple concept, by all means design it according to OOP principles.
OOP is just a tool among many. The goal is not to write OOP code, but to write good code. Sometimes, the way to do this is by using OOP principles, but often, you can get better code using generic programmming principles, or functional programming.
It is a very project dependent decision. My general feel of OOP is that its useful for organizing large projects that involve multiple components. One area I find that OOP is especially pointless is school assignments. Excepting those specifically designed to teach OOP concepts, or large software design concepts, many of my assignments, specifically those in more algorithmy type classes are best suited to non-OOP design.
So specifically, smaller projects, that are not likely to grow large, and projects that center around a single algorithm seem to be non-OOP candidates in my books. Also, if you can write the specification as a linear set of steps, e.g., with no interactive GUI or state to maintain, this would also be an opportunity.
Of course, if you're required to use an OOP design, or an OOP toolkit, or if you have well defined 'objects' in you're spec, or if you need the features of polymorphism, etc. etc. etc...there are plenty of reasons to use it, the above seem to be indicators of when it would be simple not to.
Just my $0.02.
Having an Ada background, I develop in C in terms of packages containing data and their associated functions. This gives a code very modular with pieces of code that can be taken apart and reused on other projects. I don't feel the need to use OOP.
When I develop in Objective-C, objects are the natural container for data and code. I still develop with more or less the package concept in mind with some new cool features.
I'm used to be an OOP fanboy... Then realized using functions, generics and callbacks can often make a more elegant and change-friendly solution in C++ than classes and virtual functions.
Other big names realized it too: http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/OO_programming/
IMHO, I have a feeling that the OOP concept is not really suits the needs of the Big Data, as OOP assume all the stuff to be kept in memory (concept of Objects and member variables). This always result in memory demanding and heavy applications when OOP is used for example for big images processing. Instead, the simplicity of C maybe used with intensive parallel I/O making apps more efficient and easy to implement. It is the year 2019 I am writing this message...Everything may change in a year! :)
In my mind it comes down to what kind of model suits the problem at hand. It seems to me that OOP is best suited to coding GUI programs, in that the data and functionality for a graphical object is easily bundled together. Other problems- (such as a webserver, as an example off the top of my head), might be more easily modeled with a data centric approach, where there's no strong advantage to having a method and its data near each-other.
tl;dr depends on the problem.
I'd say the greatest benefit of C++ OOP is inheritance and polymorphism (Virtual function etc...) .
This allows for code reuse and extendibility
C++, use OOP - - - C, no, with certain exceptions
In C++ you should use OOP. It's a nice abstraction and it's the tool you are given. You either use it or leave it in the box where it can't help. You don't use the power saw for everything but I would read the manual and have it ready for the right job.
In C, it's a more difficult call. While you can certainly write arbitrarily object-oriented code in C, it's enough of a pain that you immediately find yourself fighting the language in order to use it. You may be more productive dropping the doesn't-fit-so-well design pattern and programming as C was intended to be used.
Furthermore, every time you make an array of function pointers or something in an OOP-in-C design pattern, you sever almost completely all visible links in the inheritance chain, making the code hard to maintain. In real OOP languages, there is an obvious chain of derived classes, often analyzed and documented for you. (mmm, javadoc.) Not so in OOP-in-C, and the tools available won't be able to see it.
So, I would argue in general against OOP in C. For a really complex program, you may well need the abstraction, and then you will have to do it despite needing to fight the language in the process and despite making the program quite hard to follow by anyone other than the original author.
But if you knew the program was going to become that complicated, you shouldn't have written it in C in the first place...
In C, there are some times when I 'emulate' the object oriented approach, by defining some sort of constructor with granular control over things like callbacks, when running several instances of it.
For instance, lets say I have some spiffy event handler library and I know that down the road I'm going to need many allocated copies:
So I would have (in C)
MyEvent *ev1 = new_eventhandler();
set_event_callback_func(ev1, callback_one);
ev1->setfd(fd1);
MyEvent *ev2 = new_eventhandler();
set_event_callback_func(ev2, callback_two);
ev2->setfd(fd2);
destroy_eventhandler(ev1);
destroy_eventhandler(ev2);
Obviously, I would later do something useful with that like handle received events in the two respective callback functions. I'm not going to really elaborate on the method of typing function pointers and structures to hold them, nor what would go on in the 'constructor' because its pretty obvious.
I think, this approach works for more advanced interfaces where its desirable to allow the user to define their own callbacks (and change them on the fly), or when working on complex non-blocking I/O services.
Otherwise, I much prefer a more procedural / functional approach.
Probably an unpopular idea but I think you should stick with non-OOP unless it adds something useful. In most practical problems OOP is useful but if I'm just playing with an idea I start writing non-object code and put functions and data into classes if it becomes useful.
Of course I still use other objects in my code (std::vector et al) and I use namespaces to help organise my functions but why put code into objects until it is useful? Equally don't shy away from free functions in an OO solution.
The question is tricky because OOP encompasses several concepts: object encapsulation, polymorphism, inheritance, etc. It's easy to take those ideas too far. Here's a concrete example:
When C++ first caught on, zillions of string classes sprung into being. Everything you could possibly imagine doing to a string (upcasing, downcasing, trimming, tokenizing, parsing, etc.) was a member function of some string class.
Notice, though, that std::strings from the STL don't have all these methods. STL is object-oriented--the state and implementation details of a string object are well encapsulated, only a small, orthogonal interface is exposed to the world. All the crazy manipulations that people used to include as member functions are now delegated to non-member functions.
This is powerful, because these functions can now work on any string class that exposes the same interface. If you use STL strings for most things and a specialty version tuned to your program's idiosyncracies, you don't have to duplicate member functions. You just have to implement the basic string interface and then you can re-use all those crazy manipulations.
Some people call this hybrid approach generic programming. It's still object-oriented programming, but it moves away from the "everything is a member-function" mentality that a lot of people associate with OOP.
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.
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
Recently, I've got a dangerous idea into my head after reading this blog post. That idea can be expressed like this:
I don't need most of what the C++ standard library offers. So, why don't I implement a less general, but easier to use version?
As an example, using the STL spits out reams of incomprehensible and mangled compiler errors. But, I don't care about allocators, iterators and the like. So why don't I take a couple of hours and implement an easy to use linked list class, for example?
What I'd like to know from the StackOverflow community is this: what are the dangers, possible disadvantages and possible advantages to "rolling my own" for most of the existing functionality in C++?
Edit: I feel that people have misunderstood me about this idea. The idea was to understand whether I could implement a very small set of STL functionality that is greatly simplified - more as a project to teach me about data structures and the like. I don't propose re-inventing the entire wheel from the ground up, just the part that I need and want to learn about. I suppose what I wanted to figure out is whether the complexity of using the STL warrants the creation of smaller, simpler version of itself.
Re-using boost or similiar.
Most of what I code is for University and we're not allowed to use external libraries. So it's either the C++ standard library, or my own classes.
Objectivity of this question.
This question is not subjective. Nor should it be community Wiki, since it's not a poll. I want concrete arguments that highlight one advantage or one disadvantage that could possibly occur with my approach. Contrary to popular belief, this is not opinion, but based on experience or good logical arguments.
Format.
Please post only one disadvantage or one advantage per answer. This will allow people to evaluate individual ideas instead of all your ideas at once.
And please...
No religious wars. I'm not a fan boy of any language. I use whatever's applicable. For graphics and data compression (what I'm working on at the moment) that seems to be C++. Please constrain your answers to the question or they will be downvoted.
So, why don't I implement a less
general, but easier to use version?
Because you can't. Because whatever else you might say about C++, it is not a simple language, and if you're not already very good at it, your linked list implementation will be buggy.
Honestly, your choice is simple:
Learn C++, or don't use it. Yes, C++ is commonly used for graphics, but Java has OpenGL libraries too. So does C#, Python and virtually every other language. Or C. You don't have to use C++.
But if you do use it, learn it and use it properly.
If you want immutable strings, create your string as const.
And regardless of its underlying implementation, the STL is remarkably simple to use.
C++ compiler errors can be read, but it takes a bit of practice. But more importantly, they are not exclusive to STL code. You'll encounter them no matter what you do, and which libraries you use. So get used to them. And if you're getting used to them anyway, you might as well use STL too.
Apart from that, a few other disadvantages:
No one else will understand your code. If you ask a question on SO about std::vector, or bidirectional iterators, everyone who's reasonably familiar with c++ can answer. If you ask abut My::CustomLinkedList, no one can help you. Which is unfortunate, because rolling your own also means that there will be more bugs to ask for help about.
You're trying to cure the symptom, rather than the cause. The problem is that you don't understand C++. STL is just a symptom of that. Avoiding STL won't magically make your C++ code work better.
The compiler errors. Yes, they're nasty to read, but they're there. A lot of work in the STL has gone into ensuring that wrong use will trigger compiler errors in most cases. In C++ it's very easy to make code that compiles, but doesn't work. Or seems to work. Or works on my computer, but fails mysteriously elsewhere. Your own linked list would almost certainly move more errors to runtime, where they'd go undetected for a while, and be much harder to track down.
And once again, it will be buggy. Trust me. I've seen damn good C++ programmers write a linked list in C++ only to uncover bug after bug, in obscure border cases. And C++ is all border cases. Will your linked list handle exception safety correctly? Will it guarantee that everything is in a consistent state if creating a new node (and thereby calling the object type's constructor) throws an exception? That it won't leak memory, that all the appropriate destructors will be called? Will it be as type-safe? Will it be as performant? There are a lot of headaches to deal with when writing container classes in C++.
You're missing out on one of the most powerful and flexible libraries in existence, in any language. The STL can do a lot that would be a pain even with Java's giant bloated class library. C++ is hard enough already, no need to throw away the few advantages it offers.
I don't care about allocators,
iterators and the like
Allocators can be safely ignored. You pretty much don't even need to know that they exist. Iterators are brilliant though, and figuring them out would save you a lot of headaches. There are only three concepts you need to understand to use STL effectively:
Containers: You already know about these. vectors, linked lists, maps, sets, queues and so on.
Iterators: Abstractions that let you navigate a container (or subsets of a container, or any other sequence of value, in memory, on disk in the form of streams, or computed on the fly).
Algorithms: Common algorithms that work on any pair of iterators. You have sort, for_each, find, copy and many others.
Yes, the STL is small compared to Java's library, but it packs a surprising amount of power when you combine the above 3 concepts. There's a bit of a learning curve, because it is an unusual library. But if you're going to spend more than a day or two with C++, it's worth learning properly.
And no, I'm not following your answer format, because I thought actually giving you a detailed answer would be more helpful. ;)
Edit:
It'd be tempting to say that an advantage of rolling your own is that you'd learn more of the language, and maybe even why the STL is one of its saving graces.. But I'm not really convinced it's true. It might work, but it can backfire too.
As I said above, it's easy to write C++ code that seems to work. And when it stops working, it's easy to rearrange a few things, like the declaration order of variables, or insert a bit of padding in a class, to make it seemingly work again. What would you learn from that? Would that teach you how to write better C++? Perhaps. But most likely, it'd just teach you that "C++ sucks". Would it teach you how to use the STL? Definitely not.
A more useful approach might be utilizing the awesome power of StackOverflow in learning STL the right way. :)
Disadvantage: no one but you will use it.
Advantage: In the process of implementing it you will learn why the Standard Library is a good thing.
Advantages: eating your own dogfood. You get exactly what you do.
Disadvantages: eating your own dogfood. Numerous people, smarter than 99 % of us, have spent years creating STL.
I suggested you learn why:
using the STL spits out reams of
incomprehensible and mangled compiler
errors
first
Disadvantage: you may spend more time debugging your class library than solving whatever university task you have in front of you.
Advantage: you're likely to learn a lot!
There is something you can do about the cryptic compiler STL error messages. STLFilt will help simplify them. From the STLFilt Website:
STLFilt simplifies and/or reformats
long-winded C++ error and warning
messages, with a focus on STL-related
diagnostics (and for MSVC 6, it fully
eliminates C4786 warnings and their
detritus). The result renders many of
even the most cryptic diagnostics
comprehensible.
Have a look here and, if you are using VisualC, also here.
I think you should do it.
I'm sure I'll get flambayed for this, but you know, every C++ programmer around here has drunk a little too much STL coolaid.
The STL is a great library, but I know from first hand experience that if you roll your own, you can:
1) Make it faster than the STL for your particular use cases.
2) You'll write a library with just the interfaces you need.
3) You'll be able to extend all the standard stuff. (I can't tell you how much I've wished std::string had a split() method)...
Everyone is right when they say that it will be a lot of work. Thats true.
But, you will learn a lot. Even if after you write it, you go back to the STL and never use it again, you'll still have learned a lot.
A bit of my experience : Not that long ago I have implemented my own vector-like class because I needed good control on it.
As I needed genericity I made a templated array.
I also wanted to iterate through it not using operator[] but incrementing a pointer like a would do with C, so I don't compute the address of T[i] at each iteration... I added two methods one to return pointer to the allocated memory and another that returns a pointer to the end.
To iterate through an array of integer I had to write something like this :
for(int * p = array.pData(); p != array.pEnd(); ++p){
cout<<*p<<endl;
}
Then when I start to use vectors of vectors I figure out that when it was possible a could allocate a big bloc of memory instead of calling new many times. At this time I add an allocator to the template class.
Only then I notice that I had wrote a perfectly useless clone of std::vector<>.
At least now I know why I use STL...
Disadvantage : IMHO, reimplimenting tested and proven libraries is a rabit hole which is almost garanteed to be more trouble than it's worth.
Another Disadvantage:
If you want to get a C++ job when you're finished with University, most people who would want to recruit you will expect that you are familiar with the Standard C++ library. Not necessarily intimately familiar to the implementation level but certainly familiar with its usage and idioms. If you reimplement the wheel in form of your own library, you'll miss out on that chance. This is nonwithstanding the fact that you will hopefully learn a lot about library design if you roll your own, which might earn you a couple of extra brownie points depending on where you interview.
Disadvantage:
You're introducing a dependency on your own new library. Even if that's sufficient, and your implementation works fine, you still have a dependency. And that can bite you hard with code maintenance. Everyone else (including yourself, in a year's time, or even a month's) will not be familiar with your unique string behavior, special iterators, and so on. Much effort will be needed just to adapt to the new environment before you could ever start refactoring/extending anything.
If you use something like STL, everyone will know it already, it's well understood and documented, and nobody will have to re-learn your custom throwaway environment.
You may be interested in EASTL, a rewrite of the STL Electronic Arts documented a while back. Their design decisions were mostly driven by the specific desires/needs in multiplatform videogame programming. The abstract in the linked article sums it up nicely.
Advantage
If you look into MFC, you'll find that your suggestion already is used in productive code - and has been so for a long time. None of MFC's collection classes uses the STL.
Why don't you take a look at existing C++ libraries. Back when C++ wasn't quite as mature, people often wrote their own libraries. Have a look at Symbian (pretty horrible though), Qt and WxWidgets (if memory serves me) have basic collections and stuff, and there are probably many others.
My opinion is that the complexity of STL derives from the complexity of the C++ language, and there's little you can do to improve on STL (aside from using a more sensible naming convention). I recommend simply switching to some other language if you can, or just deal with it.
Disadvantage : You're university course is probably laid out like this for a reason. The fact that you are irritated enough by it (sarcasm not intended), may indicate you are not getting the paridigm, and will benefit a lot when you have a paradigm shift.
As an example, using the STL spits out
reams of incomprehensible and mangled
compiler errors
The reason for this is essentially C++ templates. If you use templates (as STL does) you will get reams of incomprehensible error messages. So if you implement your own template based collection classes you will not be in any better spot.
You could make non template based containers and store everything as void pointers or some base class e.g. But you would lose compile time type checks and C++ sucks as a dynamic language. It is not as safe to do this as it would be in e.g. Objective-C, Python or Java. One of the reasons being that C++ does not have a root class for all classes to all introspection on all objects and some basic error handling at runtime. Instead your app would likely crash and burn if you were wrong about the type and you would not be given any clues to what went wrong.
Disadvantage: reimplementing all of that well (that is, at a high level of quality) will certainly take a number of great developers a few years.
what are the dangers, possible disadvantages and possible advantages to "rolling my own" for most of the existing functionality in C++?
Can you afford and possibly justify the amount of effort/time/money spent behind reinventing the wheel?
Re-using boost or similiar.
Rather strange that you cannot use Boost. IIRC, chunks of contribution come in from people related to/working in universities (think Jakko Jarvi). The upsides of using Boost are far too many to list here.
On not 'reinventing the wheel'
Disadvantage: While you learn a lot, you also set yourself back, when you come to think of what your real project objectives are.
Advantage: Maintenance is easier for the folks who are going to inherit this.
STL is very complex because it needs to be for a general purpose library.
Reasons why STL is the way it is:
Based on interators so standard algorithms only need a single implementation for different types of containers.
Designed to behave properly in the face of Exceptions.
Designed to be 'thread' safe in multi threaded applications.
In a lot of applications however you really have enough with the following:
string class
hash table for O(1) lookups
vector/array with sort / and binary search for sorted collections
If you know that:
Your classes do not throw exceptions on construction or assignment.
Your code is single threaded.
You will not use the more complex STL algorithms.
Then you can probably write your own faster code that uses less memory and produces simpler compile/runtime errors.
Some examples for faster/easier without the STL:
Copy-on-Write string with reference counted string buffer. (Do not do this in a multi-threaded environment since you would need to lock on the reference count access.)
Use a good hash table instead of the std::set and std::map.
'Java' style iterators that can be passed around as a single object
Iterator type that does not need to know the type of the container (For better compile time decoupling of code)
A string class with more utility functions
Configurable bounds checking in your vector containers. (So not [] or .at but the same method with a compile or runtime flag for going from 'safe' to 'fast' mode)
Containers designed to work with pointers to objects that will delete their content.
It looks like you updated the question so now there are really two questions:
What should I do if I think the std:: library is too complex for my needs?
Design your own classes that internally use relevant std:: library features to do the "heavy lifting" for you. That way you have less to get wrong, and you still get to invent your own coding interface.
What should I do if I want to learn how data structures work?
Design your own set of data structure classes from the ground up. Then try to figure out why the standard ones are better.