I like C more than I thought I would
-
I do like overloading and increased type safety, but those are things you can find in other languages. And sure C# has generics but it's just not the same. I can make the C++ compiler dance the tango in a way I just can't with any other language, and it's not me - it's the compiler. Metaprogramming, for example. There's nothing else that really compares to it, at least not in common use. So that's why I miss them, and why they stand out to me. You can't do it in other languages. It sets C++ apart.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
I thought we were comparing C++ vs. C which is why I mentioned those things. I never had tasks where those wilder template things came into play. However, I've many times seen code, where people out of love for templates, have created totally abhorrable contraptions. I've seen pretty nifty uses as well :cool: If you are into metaprogramming, Haskell comes to my mind as a jewel, but I might be just wronk.
"If we don't change direction, we'll end up where we're going"
-
I thought we were comparing C++ vs. C which is why I mentioned those things. I never had tasks where those wilder template things came into play. However, I've many times seen code, where people out of love for templates, have created totally abhorrable contraptions. I've seen pretty nifty uses as well :cool: If you are into metaprogramming, Haskell comes to my mind as a jewel, but I might be just wronk.
"If we don't change direction, we'll end up where we're going"
Yeah Haskell doesn't run everywhere or let me get close to the metal. There's one easy instance I can think of for templates. In IoT, when you wire up an LCD display, you need to tell your display library/driver what pins its using (and if the driver supports more than one type, what kind of display it is) With a C app, you would have to set a bunch of defines, which can be done on the command line but is prohibitive when it comes to like 10 of them, leading a lot of people to create a "configuration" header that needs to be modified for one's project. Worse, because of that, it only supports one display type at a time. Templates allow for plugging in compile time constants all on a single line if desired, obviating the need for 10 #defines. More importantly templates allow for statics that are local to the template instantiation allowing you to create static variables that are different for different pin assignments. This then allows you to run multiple displays.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
-
Yeah Haskell doesn't run everywhere or let me get close to the metal. There's one easy instance I can think of for templates. In IoT, when you wire up an LCD display, you need to tell your display library/driver what pins its using (and if the driver supports more than one type, what kind of display it is) With a C app, you would have to set a bunch of defines, which can be done on the command line but is prohibitive when it comes to like 10 of them, leading a lot of people to create a "configuration" header that needs to be modified for one's project. Worse, because of that, it only supports one display type at a time. Templates allow for plugging in compile time constants all on a single line if desired, obviating the need for 10 #defines. More importantly templates allow for statics that are local to the template instantiation allowing you to create static variables that are different for different pin assignments. This then allows you to run multiple displays.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
I think you are a very clever guy
Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming “Wow! What a Ride!" - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
-
I think you are a very clever guy
Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming “Wow! What a Ride!" - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
I mean, not really. The thing is, I ran face first into this very thing. It was only after that point at which it occurred to me that I could use templates to create copies of static variables per template-arguments/pin-assignments. Enter use #342 of templates, the swiss army knife of C++ development.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
-
I'd guess that the mantra "C is for embedded" is mostly because of legacy systems. There was also Embedded C++, which removed templates, exceptions, and RTTI. Memory is now so cheap that C is only justified in small systems. I wouldn't sign onto a C project unless the team was small and disciplined. The risk of dealing with hacked-together code is simply too great. "Embedded" is a broad spectrum. At the toaster end, C is fine, but it quickly becomes unjustified as one moves away from that.
Robust Services Core | Software Techniques for Lemmings | Articles
The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.I'd argue that C++ is valid anywhere C is. It's just - you have to know what you're doing to get it to generate the equivalent machine code you would with C. For example Anywhere in C you take a handle of any sort, that handle becomes the this pointer of a class's instance methods. Inline constructors**, and don't initialize things unless they need to be, etc. Pretty soon you have a C++ rendition of your C code. Same machine code. ** don't actually use the inline keyword, because the compiler doesn't care about it except for linking purposes. I just really mean avoid heavy constructors.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
-
I'd argue that C++ is valid anywhere C is. It's just - you have to know what you're doing to get it to generate the equivalent machine code you would with C. For example Anywhere in C you take a handle of any sort, that handle becomes the this pointer of a class's instance methods. Inline constructors**, and don't initialize things unless they need to be, etc. Pretty soon you have a C++ rendition of your C code. Same machine code. ** don't actually use the inline keyword, because the compiler doesn't care about it except for linking purposes. I just really mean avoid heavy constructors.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
I thought the major concern with C++ rather than C was more memory for C++, not more CPU time. That, at least, was what Embedded C++ addressed. C++ allows almost all of C, so it's just a question of when you need C++ things.
Robust Services Core | Software Techniques for Lemmings | Articles
The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing. -
I thought the major concern with C++ rather than C was more memory for C++, not more CPU time. That, at least, was what Embedded C++ addressed. C++ allows almost all of C, so it's just a question of when you need C++ things.
Robust Services Core | Software Techniques for Lemmings | Articles
The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.I think that's only true if you're using the STL. Exceptions also cause hidden overhead, but those things are optional.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
-
I've always been a C++ nerd. I came at C++ self taught, but I came at it fresh, without "graduating" from writing C code. I've never regarded C++ as OOP, but rather GP oriented, although in truth it's a chameleon, and can do pretty much anything. However, I make heavy use of template based programming. So I didn't think I'd enjoy C. I figured I'd miss templates. I still do. There is some real ugly in terms of things you have to do with C that are elegant in C++. That being said, I don't miss them as much as I thought I would. Also, using the preprocessor freely is kind of liberating. In C++ I use it only as a last resort. In C it's more first class for me. Anyway, I like C. I do wish it had templates! And it's kind of verbose, which is hard on the fingers (everything has a handle) but also it wasn't a huge transition for me, since I do a lot of IoT coding I don't use things like exceptions, nor do I make heavy use of the STL, so C wasn't so bad. :)
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
First time I saw C I immediately liked it. The syntax made sense at a gut level. I had Fortran and Basic under my belt at that time, so not a lot of exposure to other languages, but it was non-case locked, and arbitrary length variable names were a godsend. But I still dislike two items about it. First is the
typedefs that surround allstructs in the MS headers. I still don't understand why that was done, although I never delved into it very much. The second is that everything has to be casted on both sides of the '='. That got old quick. I still like the language, though. C++ is far betterer! And when I finally understood true OOP in C++ I was in heaven!Our Forgotten Astronomy | Object Oriented Programming with C++ | Wordle solver
-
First time I saw C I immediately liked it. The syntax made sense at a gut level. I had Fortran and Basic under my belt at that time, so not a lot of exposure to other languages, but it was non-case locked, and arbitrary length variable names were a godsend. But I still dislike two items about it. First is the
typedefs that surround allstructs in the MS headers. I still don't understand why that was done, although I never delved into it very much. The second is that everything has to be casted on both sides of the '='. That got old quick. I still like the language, though. C++ is far betterer! And when I finally understood true OOP in C++ I was in heaven!Our Forgotten Astronomy | Object Oriented Programming with C++ | Wordle solver
My path was PL/I, Fortran, C. Never did get into C++. The C++ coding I saw from other programmers was inscrutable. In fact, the problem was they all did their own thing when creating objects. I just didn't want to learn to crawl around in their individual sand boxes of objects and classes. True one can get crazy with C but it's twice as crazy in C++.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day" Badfinger
-
My path was PL/I, Fortran, C. Never did get into C++. The C++ coding I saw from other programmers was inscrutable. In fact, the problem was they all did their own thing when creating objects. I just didn't want to learn to crawl around in their individual sand boxes of objects and classes. True one can get crazy with C but it's twice as crazy in C++.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day" Badfinger
Check out the C++ Object Oriented Programming tutorial in my sig. It may be clear enough to understand some of the additional power that C++ gives you with respect to C (without taking templates into account). If you have suggestions for improvement, holler!
Our Forgotten Astronomy | Object Oriented Programming with C++ | Wordle solver
-
Check out the C++ Object Oriented Programming tutorial in my sig. It may be clear enough to understand some of the additional power that C++ gives you with respect to C (without taking templates into account). If you have suggestions for improvement, holler!
Our Forgotten Astronomy | Object Oriented Programming with C++ | Wordle solver
Thank you, so much for your response, David. My critique was probably more about the programmers use of C++ than the language. I did a quick look at your article and found it well organized. Good Job. I made a PDF copy of your article to read offline. BTW your complaints about C are also some of mine.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day" Badfinger
-
Thank you, so much for your response, David. My critique was probably more about the programmers use of C++ than the language. I did a quick look at your article and found it well organized. Good Job. I made a PDF copy of your article to read offline. BTW your complaints about C are also some of mine.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day" Badfinger
I hope it shines a light on some new stuff for you! Best wishes!
Our Forgotten Astronomy | Object Oriented Programming with C++ | Wordle solver
-
I hope it shines a light on some new stuff for you! Best wishes!
Our Forgotten Astronomy | Object Oriented Programming with C++ | Wordle solver
BTW I use Codeblocks for my development environment. It has both a C and C++ environment and works for me. I also have visual studio 2022 installed but not my choice yet. Thanks again. "Light" is the appropriate term as lighting simulations was my line of work for many years.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day" Badfinger
-
I'd guess that the mantra "C is for embedded" is mostly because of legacy systems. There was also Embedded C++, which removed templates, exceptions, and RTTI. Memory is now so cheap that C is only justified in small systems. I wouldn't sign onto a C project unless the team was small and disciplined. The risk of dealing with hacked-together code is simply too great. "Embedded" is a broad spectrum. At the toaster end, C is fine, but it quickly becomes unjustified as one moves away from that.
Robust Services Core | Software Techniques for Lemmings | Articles
The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.Embedded has multiple layers. A tv remote has a microcontroller in it, definitely won't support a C++ program.
GCS/GE d--(d) s-/+ a C+++ U+++ P-- L+@ E-- W+++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
-
First time I saw C I immediately liked it. The syntax made sense at a gut level. I had Fortran and Basic under my belt at that time, so not a lot of exposure to other languages, but it was non-case locked, and arbitrary length variable names were a godsend. But I still dislike two items about it. First is the
typedefs that surround allstructs in the MS headers. I still don't understand why that was done, although I never delved into it very much. The second is that everything has to be casted on both sides of the '='. That got old quick. I still like the language, though. C++ is far betterer! And when I finally understood true OOP in C++ I was in heaven!Our Forgotten Astronomy | Object Oriented Programming with C++ | Wordle solver
David O'Neil wrote:
First is the typedefs that surround all structs in the MS headers. I still don't understand why that was done,
Quirkiness of old C standard: when using struct the type is actually
struct typeand nottype. With ANSI C you would have to declare every variable of typetypeasstruct type variable;
rather than the most sensible
type variable;
A way to get around that is using typedef.
GCS/GE d--(d) s-/+ a C+++ U+++ P-- L+@ E-- W+++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
-
David O'Neil wrote:
First is the typedefs that surround all structs in the MS headers. I still don't understand why that was done,
Quirkiness of old C standard: when using struct the type is actually
struct typeand nottype. With ANSI C you would have to declare every variable of typetypeasstruct type variable;
rather than the most sensible
type variable;
A way to get around that is using typedef.
GCS/GE d--(d) s-/+ a C+++ U+++ P-- L+@ E-- W+++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
Thank you. That makes sense. I hate it!
Our Forgotten Astronomy | Object Oriented Programming with C++ | Wordle solver
-
Thank you. That makes sense. I hate it!
Our Forgotten Astronomy | Object Oriented Programming with C++ | Wordle solver
I hate it so much. And I like VisualStudio because at lerast since 2008, maybe before but after VisualStudio 6, it allowed mixing C++ syntax in C source so we could do without a lot of old C absurdities. Also C99 fixed a lot of these inconsistencies, but MS headers were written long before it.
GCS/GE d--(d) s-/+ a C+++ U+++ P-- L+@ E-- W+++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
-
I've always been a C++ nerd. I came at C++ self taught, but I came at it fresh, without "graduating" from writing C code. I've never regarded C++ as OOP, but rather GP oriented, although in truth it's a chameleon, and can do pretty much anything. However, I make heavy use of template based programming. So I didn't think I'd enjoy C. I figured I'd miss templates. I still do. There is some real ugly in terms of things you have to do with C that are elegant in C++. That being said, I don't miss them as much as I thought I would. Also, using the preprocessor freely is kind of liberating. In C++ I use it only as a last resort. In C it's more first class for me. Anyway, I like C. I do wish it had templates! And it's kind of verbose, which is hard on the fingers (everything has a handle) but also it wasn't a huge transition for me, since I do a lot of IoT coding I don't use things like exceptions, nor do I make heavy use of the STL, so C wasn't so bad. :)
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
I too is the same, started in C language in 1992 and in a few years, I graduated to C++ and I loved it. However, my last project included over 400,000 lines of MFC/C++ code and a lot of memory. So much memory (CStrings!) it would crash in 2 weeks for no reason. I finally figured out that the CStrings were eating up memory. I changed most of the CStrings with common C language variables (static arrays [], chars etc). More work but running smoothly.
-
I've always been a C++ nerd. I came at C++ self taught, but I came at it fresh, without "graduating" from writing C code. I've never regarded C++ as OOP, but rather GP oriented, although in truth it's a chameleon, and can do pretty much anything. However, I make heavy use of template based programming. So I didn't think I'd enjoy C. I figured I'd miss templates. I still do. There is some real ugly in terms of things you have to do with C that are elegant in C++. That being said, I don't miss them as much as I thought I would. Also, using the preprocessor freely is kind of liberating. In C++ I use it only as a last resort. In C it's more first class for me. Anyway, I like C. I do wish it had templates! And it's kind of verbose, which is hard on the fingers (everything has a handle) but also it wasn't a huge transition for me, since I do a lot of IoT coding I don't use things like exceptions, nor do I make heavy use of the STL, so C wasn't so bad. :)
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
Another good argument for using C++ templates is its capability to "inject" code into algorithms. I mean that C is forced to use callbacks to expand the functionality of the algorithms: with C++ you can pass the "portion" of the algorithm that extends the functionality of the base algorithm as a template argument to a template parameter. Functors (or lambdas, they are the same beast) which has code declared inline, it is generally injected into the template of the base algorithm. For example, the classic C library qsort algorithm, ignoring the fact that it forces you to play dangerously with casts to connect arguments to the callback function parameters, produces a function call for each comparison. If the algorithm (which is never a pure qsort but is a modified version, e.g. introsort) has to do with many elements and the compare function is inexpensive, it turns out that the biggest waste of time is in the invocation of the callback. In fact, especially when dealing with processors without caches or sophisticated branch prediction mechanisms, which is almost always the case with small MCUs, a function call can cost a lot. This means that, apart from code bloating (which with modern MCUs is no longer a big problem since they have a lot of Flash), C++ is often faster than C, unless a C programmer writes everything by hand and doesn't use any library facility. This gives the possibility to use the just-ready STL or Boost algorithms that do not need exceptions or dynamic allocation, customizing them efficiently. I want to remind all of you that usually the above code is written better than we could do and, in general, it is already debugged. And yes, using custom allocators and the placement-new operator, C++ can do what C does and many times it does even better: that is, C++, with a little care, can be happily used on small embedded systems. Cheers
-
Another good argument for using C++ templates is its capability to "inject" code into algorithms. I mean that C is forced to use callbacks to expand the functionality of the algorithms: with C++ you can pass the "portion" of the algorithm that extends the functionality of the base algorithm as a template argument to a template parameter. Functors (or lambdas, they are the same beast) which has code declared inline, it is generally injected into the template of the base algorithm. For example, the classic C library qsort algorithm, ignoring the fact that it forces you to play dangerously with casts to connect arguments to the callback function parameters, produces a function call for each comparison. If the algorithm (which is never a pure qsort but is a modified version, e.g. introsort) has to do with many elements and the compare function is inexpensive, it turns out that the biggest waste of time is in the invocation of the callback. In fact, especially when dealing with processors without caches or sophisticated branch prediction mechanisms, which is almost always the case with small MCUs, a function call can cost a lot. This means that, apart from code bloating (which with modern MCUs is no longer a big problem since they have a lot of Flash), C++ is often faster than C, unless a C programmer writes everything by hand and doesn't use any library facility. This gives the possibility to use the just-ready STL or Boost algorithms that do not need exceptions or dynamic allocation, customizing them efficiently. I want to remind all of you that usually the above code is written better than we could do and, in general, it is already debugged. And yes, using custom allocators and the placement-new operator, C++ can do what C does and many times it does even better: that is, C++, with a little care, can be happily used on small embedded systems. Cheers
Absolutely, although I would not use STL and and Boost on most IoT class MCUs, and the reason his heap fragmentation. When you're dealing with say 360KB of usable SRAM (the amount available for use on an ESP32) or less, the struggle is real. STL just takes a big steamer all over your heap.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
