As always, depends on what you're doing/planning to do. It's a widely used language that I doubt will become irrelevant anytime soon if that's what you're asking.
Depends what you want to do. I love writing C/C++ still and it still drives the majority of things you interact with daily, especially low level systems. People argue that all the time, but almost every device you touch has a micro controller today and almost all of those are using C or C++. Even large complex systems still use C or C++ as a primary toolset still to this day.
My 2 cents, if you get out of the echo chamber of SV and tech startups C/C++ are still very much alive and in many cases growing in usage. Inside SV and tech startups C/C++ are both treated like the elderly family member people just put up with but dismiss, when in reality that person has a shit ton of knowledge everyone could learn from.
I have been weigh which is the easier language to write lexical, parser and code generation for a new programming language. Is C or C++ the idea to start?
You'll find many compilers and parsers are written in C, it gives great portability across platforms and gives the best performance. Whether you write in C or C++ I'd think is more a matter of design choices for a parser and code gen tool. I'd probably go with C++ myself, but either is completely reasonable. You'll also be able to find lots of examples online in C/C++.
Also in this case while there are some compiler differences between platforms for C/C++ they are well documented and known. If you stay in the middle of the language and don't try to use fringe features of the language or a specific compiler then you won't have any issues. People that complain about portability or GCC etc are generally using language extensions of a specific platform compiler which can make portability a pain.
I'd argue it is mainly personal preference. But it goes to my point that if you stay in the middle of language features and don't use compiler language extensions it won't matter.
When I set my projects up I generally use gcc/g++, but that in no means is the only correct way. Just a personal preference given the number of platforms that gcc supports, including embedded.
If you’re learning it just for the sake of learning it, I’d probably choose something like Haskell. You’ll learn to think a little differently. Laziness, pure functions, immutability, etc
If you’ve got a specific project or job in mind then sure.
Common Lisp too for a very different perspective. Swap your powerful type system for a powerful macro system. Then decide what you prefer!
And finally idiomatic Javascript (i.e. don’t use classes!). People have wrote you don’t need static types if you have great tests, so I want to think about that idea. I always keep an open mind.
Yes, learning anything is always a good idea, expands the mind. I'd say the same thing about any language. Too many people just stick to one, and they act like its going to solve the worlds problems if everyone just does it their way.
I think it really depends on context. In general, it is always a great idea to learn, but we live in a society where there is a lot more to learn than time.
If a non-programmer asked me if he should learn C++, my answer would be "Only if you really, really want to. Otherwise Python, Javascript or Rust is probably a better idea".
If someone has a specific project in mind, C++ might be the answer, although probably in a minority of cases.
If someone just wants to expand their mind, then sure, why not. But there might be equally or more interesting things around, that's something that can only be retrieved from context as well.
Learning is always good, but there are subjective, qualitative nuances to be considered.
C++ is a decent language for someone who uses it full time, every day. It is a terrible language for a non-programmer. (Pretty sure Haskell is the same way...)
I wouldn't compare it like that. Templates are more like meta-programming. Templates can achieve what you can do with Java generics, but they can also do a lot more.
I wouldn't learn C++ for the templates. Except you want to learn stuff by getting your hands dirty. The same would be to learn C for trying out pointer arithmetic and shooting into your own foots ;-)
Yes - it’s valuable language that will really be valuable in helping you reason with code in the future... it’s a real shame colleges started using java instead of c and c++ as a starting language. It’s helpful to understand the building blocks that get us to languages like java or interpreted languages like python and ruby...
If you have any curiosity about how computers work and you haven't written anything that low level, I'd recommend it. A lot of the modern interpreted and garbage collected languages hide a lot of features of programming from you and I personally think it's important and valuable to learn.
21 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 67.2 ms ] threadMy 2 cents, if you get out of the echo chamber of SV and tech startups C/C++ are still very much alive and in many cases growing in usage. Inside SV and tech startups C/C++ are both treated like the elderly family member people just put up with but dismiss, when in reality that person has a shit ton of knowledge everyone could learn from.
To compile to machine code, not bytecode.
Also in this case while there are some compiler differences between platforms for C/C++ they are well documented and known. If you stay in the middle of the language and don't try to use fringe features of the language or a specific compiler then you won't have any issues. People that complain about portability or GCC etc are generally using language extensions of a specific platform compiler which can make portability a pain.
Some used LLVM and some used GCC/Clang, I'm splitting over which is a better choice to build "statically typed" programming language.
When I set my projects up I generally use gcc/g++, but that in no means is the only correct way. Just a personal preference given the number of platforms that gcc supports, including embedded.
If you’ve got a specific project or job in mind then sure.
Common Lisp too for a very different perspective. Swap your powerful type system for a powerful macro system. Then decide what you prefer!
And finally idiomatic Javascript (i.e. don’t use classes!). People have wrote you don’t need static types if you have great tests, so I want to think about that idea. I always keep an open mind.
If a non-programmer asked me if he should learn C++, my answer would be "Only if you really, really want to. Otherwise Python, Javascript or Rust is probably a better idea".
If someone has a specific project in mind, C++ might be the answer, although probably in a minority of cases.
If someone just wants to expand their mind, then sure, why not. But there might be equally or more interesting things around, that's something that can only be retrieved from context as well.
Learning is always good, but there are subjective, qualitative nuances to be considered.
I feel like Rust does not belong in this list. Why would you introduce a non-programmer to Rust?
Does anybody have any data or anecdotes about the relative market value of C++, Java, and Go?
C++ work seems to have an odd bimodal split. All the kernel and low level hardware work seems to pay a fraction of what FAANG pays.
But at the same time, the majority of significant systems at Google are in C++.
Thoughts?