Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by jandrewrogers 502 days ago
Sure, if you never need to deal with actual low-level high-performance systems code. Just because this use case doesn’t apply to anything you do doesn’t mean it applies to nobody. This is the kind of attitude that undermines languages like Rust (which I use in my systems). A fair criticism of Rust as a “systems language” is that it simply excludes all the really difficult parts of being a systems language.

C++ deserves a lot of criticism. Many aspects of the language are quite fucked. But willfully ignoring that it solves real problems that other nominal systems languages are unwilling to address doesn’t mean those problems don’t exist.
2 comments
arka2147483647 502 days ago
Respectfully, the value of a c++ wrapper/implementation comes from the fact that it behaves like one would expect a C++ classes to behave. That is, RAII, and so on.

If the underlying resource can not behave like a class, it would be better to expose a free function style api, eg:

    Handle h = ResourceGet();
    ResourceDoSomething(h);
    h.release();
link
quietbritishjim 501 days ago
> Sure, if you never need to deal with actual low-level high-performance systems code.

What are you talking about? It's perfectly possible to write high performance code in C++ without violating the basic idioms if its type system. How would that even help? It sounds like you had some past project where you just didn't have the imagination to come up with a workable design. That's not my (or C++'s) fault.

The irony is, your comment reads as though you're defending C++ against my criticism of it. But actually your assertion that you have to violate move semantics to get performance out of C++, if that made the slightest but of sense, would be more of a criticism than anything I said.

link