As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
I visited a university CS department open day today and in the labs tour we sat down to play with a couple of final-year projects from undergraduate students. One was particularly good - a sort of FPS asteroids game. I decided to take a peek in the src directory to find it was done in C++ (most of the other projects were Java 3D apps).
I haven't done any C before but I have looked through some C code before. From what I saw in the .cpp code in this game it didn't look very different.
I'm interested in learning either C or C++ but will probably learn the other later on. Is there any advantage to me learning one before the other and if so, which one?
There is no need to learn C before learning C++.
They are different languages. It is a common misconception that C++ is in some way dependent on C and not a fully specified language on its own.
Just because C++ shares a lot of the same syntax and a lot of the same semantics, does not mean you need to learn C first.
If you learn C++ you will eventually learn most of C with some differences between the languages that you will learn over time. In fact its a very hard thing to write proper C++ because intermediate C++ programmers tend to write C/C++.That is true whether or not you started with C or started with C++.
If you know C first, then that is good plus to learning C++. You will start with knowing a chunk of the language. If you do not know C first then there is no point focusing on a different language. There are plenty of good books and tutorials available that start you from knowing nothing and will cover anything you would learn from C which applies to C++ as well.
Please see further reasoning in this answer.
I love this question - it's like asking "what should I learn first, snowboarding or skiing"?
I think it depends if you want to snowboard or to ski. If you want to do both, you have to learn both.
In both sports, you slide down a hill on snow using devices that are sufficiently similar to provoke this question. However, they are also sufficiently different so that learning one does not help you much with the other. Same thing with C and C++. While they appear to be languages sufficiently similar in syntax, the mind set that you need for writing OO code vs procedural code is sufficiently different so that you pretty much have to start from the beginning, whatever language you learn second.
I learned C first, and I took a course in data structures which used C, before I learned C++. This has worked well for me. A data structures course in C gave me a solid understanding of pointers and memory management. It also made obvious the benefits of the object oriented paradigm, once I had learned what it was.
On the flip side, by learning C first, I have developed some habits that initially caused me to write bad C++ code, such as excessive use of pointers (when C++ references would do) and the preprocessor.
C++ is really a very complex language with lots of features. It is not really a superset of C, though. Rather there is a subset of C++ consisting of the basic procedural programming constructs (loops, ifs, and functions), which is very similar to C. In your case, I would start with that, and then work my way up to more advanced concepts like classes and templates.
The most important thing, IMHO, is to be exposed to different programming paradigms, like procedural, object-oriented, functional, and logical, early on, before your brain freezes into one way of looking at the world. Incidentally, I would also strongly recommend that you learn a functional programming language, like Scheme. It would really expand your horizons.
If you decide to learn both (and as other people have mentioned, there's no explicit need to learn both), learn C first. Going from C to C++ feels like a natural progression; going the other way feels like deliberately tying one hand behind your back. :-)
I think you should learn C first, because I learned C first. C gave me a good grasp of the syntax and gotchas with things like pointers, all of which flow into C++.
I think C++ makes it easy to wrap up all those gotchas (need an array that won't overflow when you use the [] operator and a dodgy index? Sure, make an array class that does bounds checking) but you need to know what they are and get bitten by them before you understand why things are done in certain ways.
When all is said and done, the way C++ is usually taught is "C++ is C with objects, here's the C stuff and here's how all this OO stuff works", so you're likely to learn basic C before any real C++ if you follow most texts anyway.
I'm going to disagree with the majority here. I think you should learn C before learning C++. It's definitely not necessary, but I think it makes learning C++ a lot easier. C is at the heart of C++. Anything you learn about C is applicable to C++, but C is a lot smaller and easier to learn.
Pick up K&R and read through that. It is short and will give you a sufficient sense of the language. Once you have the basics of pointers and function calls down, you can move on to C++ a little easier.
In the process of learning C++ you will learn most of C as well. But keep in mind a lot of C++ code is not valid C. C++ was designed to be compatible with C code, so i'd say learn C++ first. Brian wrote a great answer regarding this.
Learning C forces you to think harder about some issues such as explicit and implicit memory management or storage sizes of basic data types at the time you write your code.
Once you have reached a point where you feel comfortable around C's features and misfeatures, you will probably have less trouble learning and writing in C++.
It is entirely possible that the C++ code you have seen did not look much different from standard C, but that may well be because it was not object oriented and did not use exceptions, object-orientation, templates or other advanced features.
Like the answers to many other questions in life, it depends. It depends on what your programming interests and goals are. If you want to program desktop applications, perhaps with a GUI, then C++ (and OOP) is probably a better way to go. If you're interested in hardware programming on something other than an x86 chipset, then C is often a better choice, usually for its speed. If you want to create a new media player or write a business app, I'd choose C++. If you want to do scientific simulations of galaxy collisions or fluid dynamics, behold the power of C.
I think learning C first is a good idea.
There's a reason comp sci courses still use C.
In my opinion its to avoid all the "crowding" of the subject matter the obligation to require OOP carries.
I think that procedural programming is the most natural way to first learn programming. I think that's true because at the end of the day its what you have: lines of code executing one after the other.
Many texts today are pushing an "objects first" approach and start talking about cars and gearshifts before they introduce arrays.
No.
It's generally more useful to learn C++ because it's closer to the most modern OO-based languages, like Eiffel or C#.
If your goal is to learn C++, learn modern, standard C++ in the first place. Leave the mallocs aside.
But Steve Rowe has a point...
Having observed people, who have learned Java first, struggle with the concepts of pointers and memory management in C++, I'd say that learning C first is a good idea, in order to grasp these two concepts, isolated from the complexities of other C++ features.
My two cents:
I suggest to learn C first, because :
it is a fundamental language - a lot of languages descended from C
more platforms supports C compiler than C++,- be it embedded systems, GPU chips, etc.
according to TIOBE index C is still about 2 times more popular than C++.
i think c is a really nice programming language, it's compact and somewhat easy to learn.
but if you only want to learn c++ start with c++. but i suggest you to learn both. and if you want to do that; i think it's better to start with c. as said before: it's small and somewhat easy to learn. might be a nice step-up to a more complex programming language as c++. (since c provides you with some basics)
good luck.
Related
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
I am relatively new to programming and want to be able to make native C++ programs for Linux and Windows.
I am just wondering as a beginner should I first of all learn low level languages such as C and assembly in vim or should I just straight out start in an IDE with C++?
If you want to learn C++, learn C++. Learning C or assembly language first is not only a waste of time, but usually teaches relatively poor habits that you need to work at un-learning before you use C++ well.
That's not to say that knowing C or assembly language makes it impossible to use C++ well -- but each requires decidedly different mind-sets, so it creates extra work.
If your ultimate goal is to learn C++, it is not a prerequisite that you learn C first. You can, but you don't have to.
The bottom line is, do what you feel most comfortable doing.
C++ is not (really) a high-level programming language. You're still manually managing your memory and getting undefined environment-specific behavior whenever you make a minor programming mistake. Besides that, C++ is a very unfriendly language for new programmers because it is both overly complex and (in my opinion) horribly designed.
I recommend starting with an actual high-level language like Java, Python or C# in combination with a fancy IDE. Starting with C is also an option if you want to concentrate more on low-level aspects rather than general programming techniques and paradigms.
Also you don't have to learn vim if you want to start programming, a simple editor such as gedit or Notepad++ will also work perfectly fine. An IDE specifically designed for your language is probably the most comfortable, though.
EDIT: As Jerry Coffin has correctly pointed out, this advice isn't really helpful if your goal is to program C++ applications. Although I'd still recommend starting with an easier (high-level) language to obtain general programming skills before you start with C++. If C++ isn't absolutely neccessary for the thing you want to achieve, it also isn't a bad idea to reconsider whether you actually want to use that language.
If you want to learn C++, start with C++. You don't need to learn C first; it would actually be somewhat counterproductive, since you'd have to unlearn some stuff when you moved to C++.
C and C++ are different languages, with different goals and philosophies. A well-written C++ program will not look or behave much like a well-written C program.
Once you get comfortable with high-level C++ features, then you can start delving into the lower level details.
"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
-Sir Issac Newton
Do not reinvent the wheel.
start as high and abstracted from the core as you can, and only revisit the core when there is no other way to advance in your road.
Your question seems to me being more about learning programming.
Language choice may be secondary to learning the programing paradigms/concepts.
So if programming is your focus, then you may first learn object oriented programming (OOP) concepts, so that you don't have to "adopt" them in a way people coming from procedural approach often do. Then, if needed, you may dig into procedural way and some C idioms/tricks and low-level approaches.
OOP can be taught in C++ as in Java etc. does not matter on that stage.
Once your mindset is "oriented", then the actual programming will be more about using existing libraries (APIs), which in fact will require more learning than the language itself.
So my advice is to learn OOP concepts first, then review your future language preferences. Have fun!!
Javascript is the first language I learned and I feel lucky that it was. With it I was able to skip past alot of the intricacies and barriers of other languages like static typing, pointers, and compiling. With javascript, you don't even have to install anything, just go here and you can begin trying things out: http://jsfiddle.net/X4PpW/ .
After I had a strong grasp of Javascript, understanding the concept of using pointers and classes in C was easy for me. Another good language to start with would be Python.
Also, what do you intend on making? Not all desktop apps have to be written in C. In fact some new frameworks out there borrow ideas from web applications or even allow embedding HTML from websites into your app.
Games: Unity3d http://unity3d.com/ (Games written in this can be ported to mobile devices or the Web but requires a plugin)
General app with UI : QT http://qt.nokia.com/products/
This question already has answers here:
Closed 12 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
C++ tutorial for experienced C programmer.
I program in a number of languages frequently and have been using C++ lately. Basically my classes are just wrappers around pure C code. Almost like a struct with associated methods. This gives me the encapsulation and privacy that I want for my data. I have a small hierarchy of classes and am just barely using inheritance.
I am familiar with OO concepts and know what search terms to use when i need to find out about a particular concept in this regard. However, as I have discovered in my foray in the programming world, often the language features that are really helpful are hidden to the newcomer or novice, and the useful bits that I need have already been written and are in a library somewhere that is freely available (most times part of the framework - like in .NET).
What path would you suggest to gain this vital knowledge in C++ and stop myself reinventing the wheel (poorly).
This is the wrong way to use C++. You would be better served grabbing a copy of Accelerated C++ and reading it. Yes, it's a beginner book but unless you want to continue treating C++ as just C with objects then you need to focus on how C++ programmers do things instead of just sticking with what you already know. You need to start from the beginning and build a good foundation in C++.
Learn the STL if you're going to really plan to use C++ in the future. Though opinions will vary widely, particularly among the die-hards, I think there is absolutely no problem using C++ as "C with objects."
Boost is also pretty awesome.
EDIT: Note the downvotes already coming in from the die-hards. C++ acolytes really don't like to hear people advocate using the language as "C with objects." I stand by my statement. You can write quite shippable and commercially viable code without going crazy with an RTTI-enabled, templatized, multiply-inherited set of classes. Remember KISS.
Scott Meyers' books are a great place for C programer to begin with C++.
I recommend Thinking In C++ by Bruce Eckle. Normally it's available for free online, or as a book.
I suggest you read the books:
"C++ Coding Standards: 101 Rules, Guidelines and Best Practices" --Sutter & Alexandrescu
"Modern C++ Design: Generic Programming and Design Patterns Applied" --Alexandrescu
And probably anything else by Andrei Alexandrescu that you can get your hands on.
Then, there are a number of design patterns and programming idioms that make it very clear why "C with objects" is extremely reductionist. Just to name a few: RAII (Resource Allocation Is Initialization), PImpl (or Cheshire Cat), Factory functions, Smart Pointers, Singleton, Type Traits, Expression Templates, etc. When you know about these, you are no longer programming in C++, but in ++C (because you get a result that actually reflects the increment over C).
As for not reinventing the wheel, like many have said already, make sure to first explore the possibilities in the Standard Template Library (STL) (which is much richer than you might think) and then look at Boost (www.boost.org) which has libraries for a lot of diverse purposes and they are extremely high quality (and some are just works of art, like Spirit, Proto, Lambda and MPL). After that, there is of course a large amount of open-source software in C++ out there, but use it with caution: sometimes it is better to reinvent a wheel that fits perfectly to your application than to use one that might not be appropriate or powerful enough, or worse, full of bugs!
I suggest the book The C++ Programming Language for filling in the gaps in your basic C++ knowledge, and BOOST as the first place to look for existing libraries supporting your programming.
Have you thought about getting the C++ Primer Plus? It's a really good book.
The C++ Standard Library: A Tutorial and Reference
Read Meyers for specific tips, but also Stroustrup's Design and Evolution. The latter gets into the motivation as to why C++ is what it is, and very much comes from a "how to improve C" viewpoint.
As for "The C++ Programming Language", 3rd edition is very long. If you can find the 2nd edition, its much more digestible, although of course occasionally out of date (but mostly just less complete).
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
I have tried to keep up with C++ since they introduced 1998 ANSI/ISO C++. I absorbed the new concepts and tried to understand them. I learned about exception handling, templates, and namespaces. I've read about the new cast mechanisms and worked with the STL library.
All of these concepts required a lot of energy. But now I am somewhat worried about the future of C++ when having a look at the new C++0x standard.
Things are getting more and more complicated. This language is becoming a monster.
I'm not sure that I want to keep up with the language anymore, since I don't do my day-to-day hacking in C++ anyway. I mostly use interpreted or bytecode languages.
So why should I bother to learn this difficult, yet exceptionally powerful, language? I can do 95% of my business with Python et al. With the remaining 5%, I can deal with plain old C++ or C without hassle.
What do you think?
Everyone uses a subset of C++. For almost all application programming in C++, whether server or client side, that subset is manageable. In my opinion, the only folks that need to stay on top of absolutely every nuance of the language are the library writers -- people implementing Boost, STL, Loki, etc.
But I would absolutely use the language that fits the task. If Python is more readable and more maintainable than C++ for your job, and you don't need what C++ offers, then certainly stick with Python.
Hear what Bruce Eckel { author of the two of the so-called best C++ books } commented on C++ a few weeks ago:
That said, I hardly ever use C++
anymore. When I do, it's either
examining legacy code, or to write
performance-critical sections,
typically as small as possible to be
called from other code (my preferred
approach is to quickly write an app in
Python, then profile it and if
necessary improve performance by
calling small portions of C++ using
Python's ctypes library).
Because I was on the C++ Standards
Committee, I saw these decisions being
made. They were all extremely
carefully considered, far more so than
many of the decisions made in Java.
However, as people have rightly
pointed out, the resulting language
was complicated and painful to use and
full of weird rules that I forget as
soon as I'm away from it for a little
while -- and I figured out those rules
from first principles while I wrote
books, not just by memorizing them.
Additionally, you should read this thread and Danny Kalev's predictions on C++.
However, the growing complexity of C++ will create pressure towards splitting the language into quasi-official dialects. We can already see this trend today; it will probably intensify in the future.
EDIT:
You should take a look at this discussion, too:
C++ - Anyone else feel like C++ is getting too complicated?
First, many features of C++0x are to make the language easier to use. More readable template compile errors, more consistent initialization syntax, support for threading, which would otherwise have to rely on platform-specific libraries and so on.
So if you do use C++, I feel learning the important parts of C++0x should be a manageable task. Remember that you don't need to learn all the new features to use the language. Some features are primarily added as an aid for library implementers, for example allowing the STL to be implemented more efficiently, but which shouldn't really affect the end-users usage of the language. And some are only really necessary in very rare cases. Ignore those parts of the language.
One of their stated goals with C++0x is to avoid it becoming harder to use.
But apart from that, do you need C++? If you do your coding in other languages, why bother keeping up with C++?
You're not forced to use every feature a language provides. I don't use setjmp/longjmp in C despite it being there. I also don't use every aspect of the Java collections.
If you think the new features will make your code delivery better (faster or higher quality or both), then use them. Otherwise ignore them.
It's useful to know at a high level what they all are, if only to get you through job interviews, but half the stuff they add to languages are unnecessary in my opinion.
I never even got around to using C++ templates before switching to Java, but I knew what they were for.
It's not always about learning the latest and greatest. Software (at least at your job) is about delivery of product. That can be done in COBOL or FORTRAN if you're proficient enough at it.
No one, except maybe Bjarne and Herb Sutter, know all of C++. As you've said it's an incredibly huge language. Expecting to be able to take the entire standard + the specific implementation details of your specific compiler or compilers is truthfully unrealistic.
But you don't need to know everything in order to use C++. Instead only learn the subset of C++ that is valuable to you and your projects. It doesn't hurt to keep expanding your knowledge but unless you're writing a C++ compiler, there's no reason to know the whole thing. Even if you accomplish it, all of the people you work with won't.
So why should I bother to learn this
difficult, yet exceptionally powerful,
language? I can do 95% of my business
with python et al. With the remaining
5%, I can deal with plain old C++ or C
without hassle.
Well, for the most part you answer your own question. There is no need for you to keep up with the bleeding edge of C++ at this time.
However, the language will keep marching on. In a few years, some of the concepts you consider a bleeding-edge waste of time today will be in common use. Someday you may find during your 5% of using "plain-old C++" that some example code or code you're collaborating on uses a construct you're not familiar with. At that point, you'll need to hit the net and brush up on the new "current" C++.
Is that going to be a problem? Of course not. You're a programmer. You keep abreast of the latest programming concepts in the context of your 95% language, which also changes over time. You will likely already be quite familiar with the concepts and need only familiarize yourself with its C++ syntax when the time comes that you must use them.
Personally I hope to continue keeping up with C++, even if my career moves more toward Java or another next-gen language. Why? I would like to say because it interests me the most and because I love the complexity and expressiveness of it all. More likely, though, is just because it was my first professional language; I consider it my "native tongue".
If it does not interest you, and does not concern your job or future job, don't bother. What's wrong with that? Nothing.
Good answers.
Computer makers compete for buyers, software competes for your disk space, and languages compete for users. They do this by trying to snag each other's features.
I'm wondering how long before we see Fortran come out with lambda expressions :-)
I am hard-pressed to find a single instance where C++0x has been made more complex than C++98. There are two things which really are complex:
Concepts.
the Memory Model
but the first one has been removed again (thankfully; standardizing unimplemented features has never worked out in C++, witness throw specifications, extern templates, auto_ptr, ...), and the second isn't really something that a modern programming language can escape. It's been externally induced by Intel & Co helpfully breaking your programs to make them run faster.
The rest is just fixing annoyances that every C++ programmer has been frequently hitting in the last decades.
As a side note: I find it ... amusing ... to see how languages such as C# get packed with a database query language (LINQ) and C++ is objurgated as being bloated.
You don't need to know every standard that comes out by heart. It does help to know about the big picture though. The 5% that you do code in may have you reinvent the occasional wheel. Depending on how much time, importance that 5% has (think Pareto) you need to take a call.
Also, any particular reason (like legacy code dependency) why you can't move that 5% to python?
First try attending a course on c++0x and make your firm pay for that :)
Our brains can fit amazing amounts of junk-knowledge. Instead of cursing and having programmer-wtf-moments we should first learn from program users and listen to other people's opinions/knowhows. Knowledge transfers much faster that way.
My suggestion would be to learn the new keywords of c++0x ( && FTW) but not bother trying to learn the entire lib. Use python for w/e you want, possibly C# for apps, then use C++(0x) when you need to do something powerful. and ask stackoverflow & google about the new container when prototyping.
You dont need to use a select few language,
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
When I first learned C++ 6-7 years ago, what I learned was basically "C with Classes". std::vector was definitely an advanced topic, something you could learn about if you really wanted to. And there was certainly no one telling me that destructors could be harnessed to help manage memory.
Today, everywhere I look I see RAII and SFINAE and STL and Boost and, well, Modern C++. Even people who are just getting started with the language seem to be taught these concepts almost from day 1.
My question is, is this simply because I'm only seeing the "best", that is, the questions here on SO, and on other programming sites that tend to attract beginners (gamedev.net), or is this actually representative of the C++ community as a whole?
Is modern C++ really becoming the default? Rather than being some fancy thing the experts write about, is it becoming "the way C++ just is"?
Or am I just unable to see the thousands of people who still learn "C with classes" and write their own dynamic arrays instead of using std::vector, and do memory management by manually calling new/delete from their top-level code?
As much as I want to believe it, it seems incredible if the C++ community as a whole has evolved so much in basically a few years.
What are your experiences and impressions?
(disclaimer: Someone not familiar with C++ might misinterpret the title as asking whether C++ is gaining popularity versus other languages. That's not my question. "Modern C++" is a common name for a dialect or programming style within C++, named after the book "Modern C++ Design: Generic Programming and Design Patterns Applied", and I'm solely interested in this versus "old C++". So no need to tell me that C++'s time is past, and we should all use Python ;))
Here's how I think things have evolved.
The first generation of C++ programmers were C programmers, who were in fact using C++ as C with classes. Plus, the STL wasn't in place yet, so that's what C++ essentially was.
When the STL came out, that advanced things, but most of the people writing books, putting together curricula, and teaching classes had learned C first, then that extra C++ stuff, so the second generation learned from that perspective. As another answer noted, if you're comfortable writing regular for loops, changing to use std::for_each doesn't buy you much except the warm fuzzy feeling that you're doing things the "modern" way.
Now, we have instructors and book writers who have been using the whole of C++, and getting their instructions from that perspective, such as Koenig & Moo's Accelerated C++ and Stroustrup's new textbook. So we don't learn char* then std::strings.
It's an interesting lesson in how long it takes for "legacy" methods to be replaced, especially when they have a track record of effectiveness.
Absolutely yes. To me if you're not programming C++ in this "Modern C++" style as you term, then there's no point using C++! You might as well just use C. "Modern C++" should be the only way C++ is ever programmed in my opinion, and I would expect that everyone who uses C++ and has programmed in this "Modern" fashion would agree with me. In fact, I am always completely shocked when I hear of a C++ programmer who is unaware of things such as an auto_ptr or a ptr_vector. As far as I'm concerned, those ideas are basic and fundamental to C++, and so I couldn't imagine it any other way.
In the days of Windows 3.1, C was the standard. When C++ hit the developer market and later became ANSI standard, it was the new hotness. It popularized the OOP acronym and some of the basic design patterns using polymorphism.
Now, with the greater acceptance of low-barrier-to-entry managed platforms, like C#/.NET, there's less of a reason to use C++. So much of the developer base will have a choice and let's be honest: C++ is a bear to learn for a novice. With C#, you can just run with it.
That leaves really only the platforms that NEED C++ and the die-hard C++ evangelists to continue practicing the art. This is the community that needs and wants all the layers of abstraction that is considered "Modern C++".
So yes, I believe "Modern C++", as you state it, is becoming more prevalent. Albeit, it's prevalent with a different audience than has used it in the past.
I am one of these guys who learned how to work with the STL and heard a lot about RAII and good C++ programming practices from day 1. Looks like some of the most recommended books for learning C++ today (like Accelerated C++ and the Effective C++ series) focus on using STL tools instead of rolling up your own stuff, and also give lots of "rules" for effective (or "modern") programming.
But talking with friends I also noted some companies still work with "C with Classes", not "Modern C++". Maybe the culture proposed by the authors and users of the "Modern C++" will prevail someday :)
I think you just had a bad experience starting off.
You need to get yourself Scott Meyers Effective C++ books. I started on C++ in anger in 1999, my team lead made me sit and read Effective C++ and More Effective C++ before I was allowed to check in ANY code.
Most of his advice is on the lines of "Don't use this feature, but if you must, keep this in mind"
If you follow his advice you'll write good or "Modern" C++.
He has a book on STL now too, but that I haven't read.
In my C++ jobs, I've found the modern features to be increasingly used, and more people asked me about them in phone screenings and interviews. As far as I can tell, they're catching on.
I learned C++ originally as something like C with Classes; although the language had advanced far beyond that, the books I read and people I worked with were firmly stuck on "old C++". RAII something people would think about, rather than automatically do, and I remember reading some of the early articles on the problems of exception safety.
As pointed out, there's new books out now. Many of the old ones are still relevant, but they increasingly seem to be full of explaining why obviously bad ideas are bad. (Similarly, it's hard for modern readers to understand how revolutionary Freud's ideas of an unconscious mind were, since it's now conventional wisdom.)
Stroustrup just came out with a textbook, Programming: Principles and Practice Using C++. I bought it because I haven't yet failed to learn good stuff from a book of Stroustrup's, but haven't gotten past the first few chapters. So far, all I can say is that I approve of the way he's starting out, and it's at least a good introduction to how C++ should be used.
While working on the project I am presently involved with, there's a lot of C++ code which has evolved over a significant period of time (over 10 years now). The evolution you speak of is clearly visible there: the older code is often "C with classes" - raw pointers, char* strings and use of associated C functions, arrays etc; newer code uses ATL smart pointers and such to manage resources, but still sticks to hand-coded loops most of the time, and iterator is a rare sight; and the newest one is chock-full of STL containers, algorithms, shared_ptr (including custom deleters to manage handles etc), heavily genericized function and class templates, and so on. Most traditional "C with classes" coding techniques, such as raw unencapsulated pointers with manual lifetime management, are very much frowned upon in code reviews these days. Judging by this, it seems that your observation is accurate.
The most recent development seems to be a fad for C++0x lambdas - which has a positive side in that it also tilts the balance in favor of using standard algorithms over hand-coded loops, since now you can have all your code inline with algorithms as well.
I wouldn't say that std::vector qualifies as "modern" these days. It is really basic.
Generally my impression is that people have gained some experience with modern C++ style and sobered up a little. Just to take a simple example, STL for_each was interesting but in practice it does not add a terrible lot of value over a plain C loop. It is harder to debug and sometimes does not provide the best performance. Also the constructs for functional programming in current STL are generally very cumbersome, especially if you got experience from a real functional language like ML.
In my experience (Spanish University), unfortunately, the norm is to not to consider languages in itself. They use the easiest languages to teach programming (i.e. Java), because it is supposed to be easy for teachers and students, and then they use C for the OS classes and such.
C++ is introduced very slightly (at any rate at any course), just to provide a C with classes. They don't get into boost or even STL. I think keeping up with all the characteristics and way of thinking of C++ is costly for both teachers and students. How many of C++ programmers here know enough of all the Boost libraries to use them to give a better solution or to design it? One has to have an interest in keeping up with all the new libraries and idioms.
However, as I said, it seems that programming in general (and programming languages in particular) are not taken too seriously, as it seems to be a temporal assignment when they start a job, then forget how to program as they go up in the enterprise tree. Many enterprises here, and the University itself, have the feel that programming can be done by anybody.
If you follow this philosophy, then for most people I know, C++ will always be "C with classes".
Regards,
In my experience it vastly depends on the age of the software product/project. Most new projects that I am aware of do use modern C++ (RAII, STL, Boost). However, there are many C++ projects that are more than 10 years old, and you don't see modern C++ there.
Also, keep in mind that some of the most popular STL implementations were pretty much broken until maybe 5 years ago (MSVC < 7.0 and GNU < 3.00)
I think the biggest barrier I've encountered is toolchain support, especially on cross-platform projects. Until a few years ago, it was common to see build notes saying "x platform needs STLport to work because their compiler is borked". Even now, I see issues with people trying to use multiple third-party dependencies tied to different versions of BOOST. This makes linking impossible, meaning you have to go back and rebuild your deps from scratch.
Now that just about everyone has stopped using MSVC++ 6, the STLport mess is behind us. But as soon as TR1 is out the door, we're back to "which versions of which environments support it and get it right" and once again this will slow adoption.
I work on a project begun in C (not C++) in 1992. Deploying modern practices across the legacy codebase would be impossible. Likewise I work on another project that is much closer to the cutting edge of C++ language.
Many teams I've been on and heard about consider the big "are we using exceptions?" question. This is code for "are we using modern C++?"
Once you aren't using exceptions, you are precluded from using the full power of the language and its libraries.
But many older codebases are exception-less, and it is perceived to be difficult to shoehorn exceptions into a codebase that doesn't expect them, or into a team that doesn't know how to use them, so the answer in such cases is often 'no.'
In my experience, modern C++ needs someone who is passionate about it on the team, who can't stand the sight of anything less, to push for it. It also needs to overcome the objections of those who want it to be more like the legacy code.
While I don't think that old-C++ codebases are going away very quickly, I do believe there are more of these passionate people in the world than there were five years ago. They face the same uphill battle they faced five years ago, but they are more likely to find kindred spirits.
Before answering such a question, you'd have to agree on what "Modern" is. This not likely to happen, since "Modern" is a poorly defined word, and means different things to different people. The title of Alexandrescu's book (Modern C++ Design) doesn't really help either, since it is largely a book on Template Metaprogramming, which is a specific area of C++ but by no means the only one.
For me, "Modern C++" != "Template Metaprogramming". I would say C++'s features on top of C would fall into these categories:
Classes (Constructors, Destructors, RAII, Dynamic Casting and RTTI)
Exceptions
References
Data Structures and Algorithms in the standard library (STL)
iostreams
Simple class and function templates
Template metaprogramming
None of these are particularly modern, since they've all been around nearly 10 years or more. Most of these features are useful and will allow you to be more productive than straight C for many use cases. A good programmer should and will use all of them in a decent sized project, but one of these things is not like the other:
Template Metaprogramming.
The short answer to template metaprogramming is just say no. Unfortunately to some people it's synonymous to "Modern C++ programming", due to the book, but in the end it creates more problems than it solves. Unless C++ develops better generic programming mechanisms like reflection, it will be ill suited for generic programming, and higher level languages like Python will be a better fit for those use cases. For that and many other reasons, see the C++ FQA
The best book for learning C++. "Accelerated C++" by Koenig & Moo, teaches what you describe as modern C++, so I guess most people these days are using it. For those of us that have been using C++ for quite a while (since the mid 80s in my case), modern C++ is a great relief from the tedious tasks of writing our own arrays, strings, hash tables (repeat ad nauseam).
I have looked at C++ Jobs on indeed and "modern" libraries are more and more used in job descriptions, MFC which is quite an "old-style" c++ library is less used.
The standardization of the language in the late 1990s was the first step, it allowed the compiler makers to focus on the "standard" set of features, also allowed the language to fix some of the rough edges, which appeared trough the standardization process.
This in turn allowed development of frameworks based on standard features of the language, and not on features provided by a particular compiler implementation. The Boost library is notably in this regard. Also this permitted that new development is based on previous work, thus making possible solutions to more complex problems.
A notable change here is how previously frameworks were based on the notion of base classes and derivated classes (a run time feature). But now most advanced features often are heavily based on "recursive" templates (a compile time feature).
The STL has its pros and cons but it survived the test of time, if you want something that works and is simple STL surely has something to help you start. There's no point in reinventing the wheel (unless for didactic reasons).
Computer hardware has also made great leaps from the 1990s, then the memory and CPU are no longer a constraint for the compiler. So most of the theoretical optimizations from books are now possible.
The next steps of the language is the support of multi-core programming, which is part of 0x standard effort.
Yes and no. Certainly for new projects it is increasingly popular. However, there are still barriers to adoption that are practical, not political, that others haven't mentioned. There are a lot of commercial C++ libraries that use ABIs from ancient compilers that don't properly support the features seen in Modern C++, and a lot of companies rely on these libraries. Sun Studio on Solaris for example can't work with Boost without the use of STLport, but any 3rd party commercial library you want to use will require Sun's version of the STL. Same story with GCC 2.95 and Redhat Enterprise Linux.
It's amaizing how little effort goes into making c++ more stable. The warning system is in place, but it's not evolving much. It's even easier to shoot yourself in a foot than it was 10 years ago. Dont know why, but c++ is still my favorite language. :)
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.