c++ replacemant

This is a discussion on c++ replacemant within the C++ Programming forums, part of the General Programming Boards category; Originally Posted by Mario F. I could however predict what could make it obsolete... A whole new computer architecture. I ...

  1. #16
    Kernel hacker
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Farncombe, Surrey, England
    Posts
    15,677
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    I could however predict what could make it obsolete... A whole new computer architecture.
    I was just thinking that I should have added something along those lines just after I pressed submit. The current computer architecture may change in the future - and in fact one reason why the "popular language" will change is that processors change in overall architecture. In the current languages, it's pretty hard to generically write code that works in multiple threads. If the trend of expanding computer calculation capacity by more cores continue, we may find that "best performance" is achieved by a different sort of software design, which in turn means that the language used for that purpose may have to change to describe better how we would want things to work in a super-parallel computing environment.

    We also can expect the boundaries between processor and graphics processor will further blur. Currently, I don't think this leads to a new language being needed, but I expect that current languages may not provide the right support if this continues [graphics processors also tend to be "super-parallel"].

    --
    Mats
    Compilers can produce warnings - make the compiler programmers happy: Use them!
    Please don't PM me for help - and no, I don't do help over instant messengers.

  2. #17
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,510
    I agree.

    Necessarily, we are today closer to the limits of our current programming languages problem domain capabilities, than we were yesterday. What we probably can't tell is how close we are, until a possibly unrelated technological breakthrough suddenly exposes the weakness when we find we can't express it in computing terms or find it exceedingly expensive to do it so.

    For x(?) decades we have been handling computing problems by throwing more hardware and increasingly bigger development teams at them with only marginal developments in programming paradigms, methodologies and concepts; essentially we have been patching up. I think we could get away with it because hardware development allowed us to. But Moore's law is going to break eventually if new architectures aren't developed. It's not if, it's when. In fact, the rate has been slowing for the past years from what I hear. Cores probably will give us a few more years... but eventually we will reach some threshold when you can't just up one side of the equation without upping the other.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  3. #18
    Cat without Hat CornedBee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    8,893
    x = 4

    All the big paradigm developments happened in the late 60s.
    All the buzzt!
    CornedBee

    "There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
    - Flon's Law

  4. #19
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,510
    As far as anyone can tell yes. Does that mean we are done though? Hardly.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  5. #20
    Unregistered User Yarin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,668
    Quote Originally Posted by matsp View Post
    I will make no prediction of WHAT will replace C++...
    C3.0?
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    I could however predict what could make it obsolete... A whole new computer architecture.
    That would make alot of people obsolete, let alone a language.
    But that would be sooo cool.
    A class that doesn't overload all operators just isn't finished yet. -- SmugCeePlusPlusWeenie
    A year spent in artificial intelligence is enough to make one believe in God. -- Alan J. Perlis

  6. #21
    Captain Crash brewbuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    7,249
    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
    I fear that hype will doom us all.
    Java, dotNet, etc, allow slow and crippled, I wouldn't want to work with any of them. Where does that leave us? C? For a computer program? No thanks.
    I agree that it's incredibly hard to justify new development in C, but what exactly are you trying to say? If C is not for "computer programs" then what is it for?
    Code:
    //try
    //{
    	if (a) do { f( b); } while(1);
    	else   do { f(!b); } while(1);
    //}

  7. #22
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,788
    I would like to say that C is for embedded devices that cannot support C++ or any other modern languages.
    For computer programs, I would like to say C++.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  8. #23
    Deathray Engineer MacGyver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    3,211
    Welcome to the beginning of yet another C vs C++ flamewar.

  9. #24
    Cat without Hat CornedBee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    8,893
    Not this time.
    All the buzzt!
    CornedBee

    "There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
    - Flon's Law

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21