[hcs-d] learning C++

Zak Stone zstone at gmail.com
Wed Apr 6 16:21:28 EDT 2011

Hello again,

In hopes of heading off a flame war, let me provide a bit more
context. I'm impressed with Cython [ http://cython.org/ ], a project
that attempts to make Python and C integration as smooth as possible.
It seems to me that tools such as Cython finally make the following
attractive development process possible:

1. Quickly prototype a system in Python with a minimal amount of code.

2. Run the system with real data and profile it.

3. Rewrite the performance-critical sections in Cython or C.

4. Return to Step 2 and repeat until system performance is satisfactory.

The advantage I perceive to this development process is that it should
converge to a correct, high-performing solution with a minimal amount
of code in a minimal amount of developer time with a minimal amount of
system complexity, which should then make future modifications easier.

Naively, it seems that a Python/Cython/C system produced by the
development process above could be strictly preferable to one produced
from scratch in either C++ or Java. Earlier comments suggest that C++
and Java are currently popular for their combination of speed and
resistance to memory bugs, but the integration of C in
performance-critical regions of a Python/Cython/C system should
address the speed issue, and the use of Python and Cython everywhere
else should make memory issues rare and easy to isolate in small
stretches of C code.

Have we reached the stage where the development process above is
reasonable even for very large projects, or is it still absolutely
necessary to start from scratch in something like C++ or Java?

For those of you who are curious, here is the original thread that I quoted:



On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 4:12 PM, William Josephson <wkj at post.harvard.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 12:37:52PM -0700, Greg Price wrote:
>> > This is more or less bunk. ?Some time back Brian Kernighan showed me
>> > a small benchmark he had written in which C++ loses pretty handily to
>> > Java and a number of scripting languages. ?C++ is bloated and slow and
>> > memory corruption is still common enough.
>> I don't know what this benchmark is or how the C++ code in question
>> was written, but this is not a common result. As for memory
> Umm...awk beats C++ STL sort.  What's impressive is that C++ STL
> loses to Python and awk.  A big problem with C++ is that its idea
> of polymorphism is rampant inlining and generation of almost identical
> code.  The result is blown I-caches.  Take a look at the recent
> work on a new ld at Google by Ian Lance Taylor to see what I mean.
> C++ is an archaic mess.  It may still be a marketable skill, but
> otherwise learn C (not C++) and move on.
>> corruption, the way you write the code is critical. If you use
>> pointers and arrays the same way as you would in C, of course memory
>> corruption bugs are just as likely. If you systematically use
>> abstractions like Boost shared pointers or scoped pointers, you are
>> much better off in that respect.
> Poor man's GC is still not GC.  Here's a dime...buy a real language :-)
> I say this as someone who has used AWK to generate templates to
> implement continuation passing in C++ to schedule concurrent code
> for cache locality.
> On a related note, have a gander at this:
>        http://www.scs.stanford.edu/~dm/home/papers/c++-new.html
> Cyclicly yours,
>  -WJ
> _______________________________________________
> hcs-discuss mailing list
> hcs-discuss at lists.hcs.harvard.edu
> https://lists.hcs.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/hcs-discuss

More information about the hcs-discuss mailing list