Given the choice C++ is way better than C, given that it allows to use higher level abstractions and replace all unsafe C heritage by library based safe constructs.
Of course, the best option would be to replace them by other languages with native compilers.
However at the level these languages are used, it will only happen when OS vendors push new languages for their OS.
So it will never happen in UNIX land or Mac OS X land.
In Windows land, Microsoft is pushing for C++ and C++/CX, maybe C# if they ever decide to offer a full native compiler, like the Bartok one.
The embedded market OS vendors are all about Ada, C and C++. A few do offer Basic, Pascal and Oberon, but are very small niche.
So there isn't any OS vendor left that would push new system programming languages for their OS.
For business programming, there are already plenty languages to chose from.
> Given the choice C++ is way better than C, given that it allows to use higher level abstractions and replace all unsafe C heritage by library based safe constructs.
You may have noticed that C++ is not always deemed universally better than C. What language are all the top web servers implemented in?
C has library based safe constructs as well, and C++ still has all of C unsafety. You just get to exercise those bugs at a higher level of abstraction.
> Of course, the best option would be to replace them by other languages with native compilers.
I think that is anything but clear. Certainly the option of doing so has been around. You just don't see a ton of big moves that worked out well.
> However at the level these languages are used, it will only happen when OS vendors push new languages for their OS.
Most OS's actually have a pretty small API footprint (Windows being the obvious outlier). If it were really just about the language bindings, it would not be a real impediment. A language runtime can abstract out the OS (as the C runtime does).
> So there isn't any OS vendor left that would push new system programming languages for their OS.
I'm going to claim this could well be a function of Darwinian forces.
> C has library based safe constructs as well, and C++ still has all of C unsafety.
The problem C's lacking one of most important primitives - data structures.
Bugs in standard library happen pretty rarely, I guess. So, C++ users have most common data structures for free.
And when I open some C-based project's code the first thing I usually expect and see is some homegrown linked list and/or map implementations (of SIGSEGV fame). I know, there are tons of libraries that offer them, but in my experience of "hey, that server crashed, could you figure out what went wrong"-type tasks, they're very rarely used.
> And when I open some C-based project's code the first thing I usually expect and see is some homegrown linked list and/or map implementations (of SIGSEGV fame). I know, there are tons of libraries that offer them, but in my experience of "hey, that server crashed, could you figure out what went wrong"-type tasks, they're very rarely used.
Fortunately, C++ developers just always use the STL because it is considered the bastion of all that is good in collection classes:
Don't get me wrong. I love C++ and use the STL by default, but it's all too rare that I look at a decent sized C++ project and see anything different from what you'd expect if the project were written in C.
> You may have noticed that C++ is not always deemed universally better than C. What language are all the top web servers implemented in?
Apache and nginx => C
Tomcat, Jetty => Java
IIS => C++/C#
> Most OS's actually have a pretty small API footprint (Windows being the obvious outlier). If it were really just about the language bindings, it would not be a real impediment. A language runtime can abstract out the OS (as the C runtime does).
If developers aren't forced to use it, then they won't use it, even if made available.
> I'm going to claim this could well be a function of Darwinian forces.
That is my hope, after all we only need a few generations of developers and then the issue is taken care of by itself.
Okay, if you are going to throw in Tomcat & Jetty, you should also throw in the likes of lighttpd, mongrel2, etc., all of which are written in C. Pretty much all the load balancers/reverse proxies are written in C too. Hmm.... is it maybe possible that it isn't always better to use C++ instead of C?
> IIS => C++/C#
Yup, the one outlier no doubt owes about 0% of its success to its tech stack. In general, if you don't work at Google and want a C++ web server on anything other than Windows, you are looking at a C++ server framework that has an embedded HTTP stack (tntnet, Wt, etc.).
> If developers aren't forced to use it, then they won't use it, even if made available.
I know. I spend all my time watching them because if I don't they just start doing everything in assembly.
> That is my hope, after all we only need a few generations of developers and then the issue is taken care of by itself.
> > Apache and nginx => C > Tomcat, Jetty => Java
> Okay, if you are going to throw in Tomcat & Jetty, you should also throw in the likes of lighttpd, mongrel2, etc., all of which are written in C. Pretty much all the load balancers/reverse proxies are written in C too. Hmm.... is it maybe possible that it isn't always better to use C++ instead of C?
No, they were developed by open source Linux guys that only care about C in what concerns compiled languages.
C++ was always badly received by the Linux community, in contrast with commercial UNIXes.
> IIS => C++/C#
> Yup, the one outlier no doubt owes about 0% of its success to its tech stack. In general, if you don't work at Google and want a C++ web server on anything other than Windows, you are looking at a C++ server framework that has an embedded HTTP stack (tntnet, Wt, etc.).
Yes, nothing like contributing to have more insecure servers around.
>> That is my hope, after all we only need a few generations of developers and then the issue is taken care of by itself.
> I think you missed my point. ;-)
I surely got your point, but it is not about Darwin of languages, rather of developers.
> No, they were developed by open source Linux guys that only care about C in what concerns compiled languages.
> C++ was always badly received by the Linux community, in contrast with commercial UNIXes.
You mean like KDE, Firefox, OpenOffice, OpenCV, VLC, bitcoin... heck even gparted is a C++ app.
The kernel developers obviously have a bias against C++ (and they'd argue that it is a justified bias). User space is a different land.
> Yes, nothing like contributing to have more insecure servers around.
? Not sure your point here...
> I surely got your point, but it is not about Darwin of languages, rather of developers.
> I surely got your point, but it is not about Darwin of languages, rather of developers.
My point was about Darwinian forces applied to language or developers.
I was responding to your point about OS vendors not being left around. It would appear that, for whatever reason, going with something other than C or C++ for your base OS doesn't seem to result in good survival odds.
>> No, they were developed by open source Linux guys that only care about C in what concerns compiled languages. > C++ was always badly received by the Linux community, in contrast with commercial UNIXes.
>You mean like KDE, Firefox, OpenOffice, OpenCV, VLC, bitcoin... heck even gparted is a C++ app.
>The kernel developers obviously have a bias against C++ (and they'd argue that it is a justified bias). User space is a different land.
I use Linux since 1995, and was for some time a Gtkmm contributor in the early days.
I know how it feels to be a C++ developer in Linux land.
> I use Linux since 1995, and was for some time a Gtkmm contributor in the early days.
> I know how it feels to be a C++ developer in Linux land.
The GNOME crowd was self selected to be a bunch of "C not C++" bigots. The KDE community was quite different (even if MOQ is an abomination ;-). The only community I can think of that would be more hostile to C++ is the kernel devs.
I don't think your experiences are accurately reflective of the larger community. Particularly as C++ has improved (really, pre-gcc 3.0 there wasn't a good C++ compiler, and pre-2000 hardly anybody understood RAII, so C++ was kind of a pain), the larger community's attitude has changed. You can see this reflected in the success of the Boost project.
Coming from Turbo Pascal background I tend to be very critic of unsafe by design nature of C and C++. Specially given my focus in compiler design during the university, which allowed me to have a broad focus and experience in many languages, the average HN crowd might not be aware of.
Having said this, I was already coding in C++ in MS-DOS around 1993 (Turbo C++) and only used plain C when forced to do so.
So I have been part of the C++ community since the early PC compilers were available, and experienced this C vs C++ for quite some years now.
The funny part is remember the performance complaints back then about C and C++, that nowadays people state in HN about languages trying to replace them.
Of course, the best option would be to replace them by other languages with native compilers.
However at the level these languages are used, it will only happen when OS vendors push new languages for their OS.
So it will never happen in UNIX land or Mac OS X land.
In Windows land, Microsoft is pushing for C++ and C++/CX, maybe C# if they ever decide to offer a full native compiler, like the Bartok one.
The embedded market OS vendors are all about Ada, C and C++. A few do offer Basic, Pascal and Oberon, but are very small niche.
So there isn't any OS vendor left that would push new system programming languages for their OS.
For business programming, there are already plenty languages to chose from.