[koakuma-chan]

I did more research and found https://isocpp.org/get-started which appears to be the authority for C++. It states that I will need a textbook for learning C++ and includes a link to Bjarne Stroustrup "Tour of C++" Amazon page (not buying it lol). For C the situation is more complicated because there appears to be multiple organizations making standards for it, and you have to pay "CHF 221.00" to even see the standard. It kind of reminds me of the web where there is also multiple consortiums making standards and browsers hopefully implement them (except the web standards are free). In conclusion I much prefer Rust where you can just read the docs without bullshit.

[ryao]

Almost nobody using C (or C++ for that matter) has read the standard. The standard exists for compiler developers. If you want to read the standard, you can get copies of the drafts for free. It is an open secret that the final draft is basically verbatim with the standard that costs money. However, it is very rare that a C programmer needs to read the standard.

As for C++, there is nothing at that link that says you need a textbook to learn C++ (and the idea that you need one is ludicrous). The textbooks are suggested resources. There are plenty of free resources available online that are just as good for learning C++.

You would be better off learning C before learning C++. C++ is a huge language and its common history with C means that if you do not understand C, you are likely going to be lost with C++. If you insist on learning C++ first, here is the first search result from DuckDuckGo when I search for "learn C++":

https://www.learncpp.com/

You will likely find many more.

For what it is worth, when I was young and wanted to learn C++, I had someone else tell me to learn C first. I had not intended to follow his advice, but I decided to learn C++ by taking a university class on the subject and the CS department had wisely made learning C a prerequisite for learning C++. I later learned that they had been right to do that.

After learning C++, I went through a phase where I thought C++ was the best thing ever (much like how you treat Rust). I have since changed my mind. C is far better than C++ (less is more). I am immensely proud of the C code that I have written during my life while I profoundly regret most of the C++ code that I have written. A particular startup company that I helped get off the ground after college runs their infrastructure on top of a daemon that I wrote in C++. Development of that daemon had been a disaster, with C++ features making it much harder to develop than it actually needed to be. This had been compounded by my "use all of the features" mentality, when in reality, what the software needed was a subset of features and using more language features just because I could was a mistake.

I had only been with the startup for a short time, but rejoined them as a consultant a few years ago. When I did, I saw that some fairly fundamental bugs in how operating system features were used from early development had gone unresolved for years. So much of development had been spent fighting the compiler to use various exotic language features correctly that actual bugs that were not the language's fault had gone unnoticed.

My successor had noticed that there were bugs when things had gone wrong, but put band-aids in place instead of properly fixing the bugs. For example, he used a cron job to restart the daemon at midnight instead of adding a missing `freeaddrinfo()` call and calling `accept()` until EAGAIN is received before blocking in `sigwaitinfo()`. Apparently, ~3000 lines of C++ code, using nearly every feature my younger self had known C++ to have, were too complicated for others to debug.

One of the first things I did when I returned was write a few dozen patches fixing the issues (both real ones and cosmetic ones like compiler warnings). As far as we know, the daemon is now bug free. However, I deeply regret not writing it in C in the first place. Had I written it in C, I would have spent less time fighting with the language and more time identifying mistakes I made in how to do UNIX programming. Others would have been been more likely to understand it in order to do proper fixes for bugs that my younger self had missed too.

[koakuma-chan]

> As for C++, there is nothing at that link that says you need a textbook to learn C++.

Sorry, it says that in their FAQ[0]. It also says "Should I learn C before I learn C++?" "Don’t bother." and proceeds to advertise a Stroustrup book[1].

[0]: https://isocpp.org/wiki/faq/how-to-learn-cpp#start-learning

[1]: https://isocpp.org/wiki/faq/how-to-learn-cpp#learning-c-not-...

> If you insist on learning C++ first, here is the first search result from DuckDuckGo when I search for "learn C++":

I don't insist on learning C++ and I even agree with you that C is better. But I have a problem with learning from non-authoritative sources, especially random websites and YouTube tutorials. I like to learn from official documentation. For C there appears to be no official documentation, and my intution tells me that, as nickpsecurity mentioned, the best way is to read the K&R book. But that brings us back to my original point that you have to buy a book.

> was the one true way (like you seem to have been with Rust)

I don't think there exists any one true way. It depends on what you do. For example I like Rust but I never really use it. I pretty much only use TypeScript.

> was the best thing ever (much like how you treat Rust)

I would actually prefer Zig over Rust but the former lacks a mature ecosystem.

> For example, they used a cron job to restart the daemon at midnight instead of adding a missing `freeaddrinfo()` call and calling `accept()` until EAGAIN is received before blocking in `sigwaitinfo()`.

This sounds like a kind of bug that would never happen in Rust because a library would handle that for you. You should be able to just use a networking library in C as well but for some reason C/C++ developers like to go as far as even implementing HTTP themselves.

> After learning C++...

Thanks for sharing your story. It's wholesome and I enjoyed reading.

[ryao]

> Sorry, it says that in their FAQ[0]. It also says "Should I learn C before I learn C++?" "Don’t bother." and proceeds to advertise a Stroustrup book[1].

They also would say "Don't bother" about using any other language. If you listen to them, you would never touch Rust or anything else.

> But I have a problem with learning from non-authoritative sources, especially random websites and YouTube tutorials. I like to learn from official documentation. For C there appears to be no official documentation, and my intution tells me that, as nickpsecurity mentioned, the best way is to read the K&R book. But that brings us back to my original point that you have to buy a book.

The K&R book is a great resource, although I learned C by taking a class where the textbook was "A Book On C". I later read the K&R book, although I found "A Book on C" to be quite good. My vague recollection (without pulling out my copies to review them) is that A Book On C was more instructional while the K&R book was more of a technical reference. If you do a search for "The C programming language", you might find a PDF of it on a famous archival website. Note that the K&R book refers to "The C programming language" by Kerninghan and Ritchie.

Relying on "authoritative" sources by only learning from the language authors is limiting, since they are not going to tell you the problems that the language has that everyone else who has used the language has encountered. It is better to learn programming languages from the community, who will give you a range of opinions and avoid presenting a distorted view of things.

There are different kinds of authoritative sources. The language authors are one, compiler authors are another (although this group does not teach), engineers who actually have used the language to develop production software (such as myself) would be a third and educational institutions would be a fourth. If you are curious about my background, I am ths ryao listed here:

https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/graphs/contributors

You could go to edx.org and audit courses from world renowned institutions for free. I will do you a favor by looking through what they have and making some recommendations. For C, there really is only 1 option on edX, which is from Dartmouth. Dartmouth is a world renowned university, so it should be an excellent teacher as far as learning C is concerned. They appear to have broken a two semester sequence into 7 online courses (lucky you, I only got 1 semester at my university; there was another class on advanced UNIX programming in C, but they did not offer it the entire time I was in college). Here is what you want to take to learn C:

https://www.edx.org/learn/c-programming/dartmouth-college-c-...

https://www.edx.org/learn/c-programming/dartmouth-college-c-...

https://www.edx.org/learn/c-programming/dartmouth-college-c-...

https://www.edx.org/learn/c-programming/dartmouth-college-c-...

https://www.edx.org/learn/c-programming/dartmouth-college-c-...

https://www.edx.org/learn/linux/dartmouth-college-linux-basi...

https://www.edx.org/learn/c-programming/dartmouth-college-c-...

There is technically a certificate you can get for completing all of this if you pay, but if you just want to learn without getting anything to show for it, you can audit the courses for free.

As for C++, there are two main options on edX. One is IBM and the other is Codio. IBM is a well known titan of industry, although I had no idea that they had an education arm. On the other hand, I have never heard of Codio. Here is the IBM sequence (note that the ++ part of C++ is omitted from the URLs):

https://www.edx.org/learn/c-programming/ibm-fundamentals-of-...

https://www.edx.org/learn/object-oriented-programming/ibm-ob...

https://www.edx.org/learn/data-structures/ibm-data-structure...

There actually are two more options on edX for C++, which are courses by Peking University and ProjectUniversity. Peking University is a world class university in China, but they only offer 1 course on edx that is 4 weeks long, so I doubt you would learn very much from it. On the other hand, I have never heard of ProjectUniversity, and their sole course on C++ is only 8 weeks long, which is not very long either. The 3 IBM courses together are 5 months long, which is what you really want.

> I pretty much only use TypeScript.

Learn C, POSIX shell scripting (or bash) and 1 functional programming language (Haskell is a popular choice). You will probably never use the functional programming language, but knowing about functional programming concepts will make you a better programmer.

> This sounds like a kind of bug that would never happen in Rust because a library would handle that for you. You should be able to just use a networking library in C as well but for some reason C/C++ developers like to go as far as even implementing HTTP themselves.

First, I was using a networking library. The C standard library on POSIX platforms is a networking library thanks to its inclusion of the Berkeley sockets API. Second, mistakes are easy to criticize in hindsight with "just use a library", but in reality, even if you use a library, you could still make a mistake, just as I did here. This code also did much more than what my description of the bug suggested. The reason for using asynchronous I/O is to be able to respond to events other than just network I/O, such as SIGUSR1. Had I not been doing that, it would not have had that bug, but it needed to respond to other things than just I/O on a socket.

I described the general idea to Grok and it produced a beautiful implementation of this in Rust using the tokio "crate". The result had the same bug that the C++ code had, because it made the understandable assumption my younger self made that 1 SIGIO = 1 connection, but that is wrong. If two connection attempts are made simultaneously from the perspective of the software, you only get 1 SIGIO. Thus, you need to call accept() repeatedly to drain the backlog before returning to listening for signals.

This logical error is not something even a wrapper library would prevent, although a wrapper library might have prevented the memory leak, but what library would I have used? Any library that wraps this would be a very thin wrapper and the use of an additional dependency that might not be usable on then future systems is a problem in itself. Qt has had two major version changes since I wrote this code. If I had used Qt 4's network library, this could have had to be rewritten twice in order to continue running on future systems. This code has been deployed on multiple systems since 2011 and it has never once needed a rewrite to work on a new system.

Finally, it is far more natural for C developers and C++ developers to use a binary format over network sockets (like I did) than HTTP. Libcurl is available when people need to use HTTP (and a wide variety of other protocols). Interestingly, an early version of my code had used libcurl for sending emails, but it was removed by my successor in favor of telling a PHP script to send the emails over a network socket (using a binary format).

[koakuma-chan]

> Thus, you need to call accept() repeatedly to drain the backlog before returning to listening for signals.

It's not just accept. If your socket is non-blocking the same applies to read, write, and everything else. You keep syscalling until it returns EAGAIN.

> I described the general idea to Grok and it produced a beautiful implementation of this in Rust using the tokio "crate". The result had the same bug that the C++ code had, because it made the understandable assumption my younger self made that 1 SIGIO = 1 connection, but that is wrong.

I don't know what your general idea was but tokio uses epoll under the hood (correctly), so what you are describing could only have happened if you specifically instructed grok to use SIGIO.

> Finally, it is far more natural for C developers and C++ developers to use a binary format over network sockets (like I did) than HTTP.

Designing a custom protocol is way more work than just using HTTP. <insert reasons why http + json is so popular (everyone is familiar with it blah blah blah)>.

[ryao]

> It's not just accept. If your socket is non-blocking the same applies to read, write, and everything else. You keep syscalling until it returns EAGAIN.

You do not call read/write on a socket that is listening for connections.

> I don't know what your general idea was but tokio uses epoll under the hood (correctly), so what you are describing could only have happened if you specifically instructed grok to use SIGIO.

That is correct. There is no other way to handle SIGUSR1 in a sane way if you are not using SIGIO. At least, there was no other way until signalfd was invented, but that is not cross platform. epoll isn't either.

> Designing a custom protocol is way more work than just using HTTP. <insert reasons why http + json is so popular (everyone is familiar with it blah blah blah)>.

You are wrong about that. The code is just sending packed structures back and forth. HTTP would overcomplicate this, since you would need to implement code to go from binary to ASCII and ASCII to binary on both ends, while just sending the packed structures avoids that entirely. The only special handling this needs is to have functions that translate the structures from host byte order into network byte order and back, to ensure that endianness is not an issue should there ever be an opposite endian machine at one end of the connection, but those were trivial to write.

Do yourself a favor and stop responding. You have no idea what you are saying and it is immensely evident to anyone who has a clue about software engineering.

[koakuma-chan]

> You are wrong about that. The code is just sending packed structures back and forth.

Among other things, this would only work if your client is written in a language that supports C structures.

> Do yourself a favor and stop responding. You have no idea what you are saying and it is immensely evident to anyone who has a clue about software engineering.

Says the one who didn't know how to use non-blocking sockets.

> That is correct. There is no other way to handle SIGUSR1 in a sane way if you are not using SIGIO. At least, there was no other way until signalfd was invented, but that is not cross platform. epoll isn't either.

```

use std::io;

use tokio::{

    net::UnixListener,

    select,

    signal::unix::{SignalKind, signal},

};

#[tokio::main(flavor = "current_thread")]

async fn main() -> io::Result<()> {

    let mut signal = signal(SignalKind::user_defined1())?;

    let listener = UnixListener::bind("./hi")?;

    loop {
        select! {
            _ = signal.recv() => {
                todo!();
            }

            _ = listener.accept() => {
                todo!();
            }
        }
    }

}

```

[koakuma-chan]

> You could go to edx.org and audit courses...

This is great advice, thanks!