with a taste of overhead

:)

Which happen to clear also the other resources

with a taste of overhead

unique_ptr have no overhead compared to new+delete

unique_ptr have no overhead compared to new+delete

Yeah Bjarne said that

Smart pointers don't free memory, they delete object

But Whataa?!

It's nearly the same

one calls the destructor

the other doesnt

unique_ptr use delete in its destructor right?!

no

it calls the destructor

Which happens a job of freeing resources

Hmm?

it calls the destructor

Of course it does

No stack object passes its scope without calling its destructor

think

unique_ptr use delete in its destructor right?!

unique_ptr calls delete in its default_deleter, which is called in reset(), which is called in the destructor iirc

Ok

Smart pointers don't free memory, they delete object

I'm not in favor of smart pointers anyways.

why not?

me too

I prefer raw pointers lol, but I have abstractions above it

I prefer raw pointers lol, but I have abstractions above it

Better than nothing. If I use pointers in C++ I always prefer Smart Pointers

It just fucks up some C APIs

I'm not in favor of smart pointers anyways.

And I say that when you have to pass data between threads, unique_ptr is life

And I say that when you have to pass data between threads, unique_ptr is life

Yeee

K

any sololearner here?

any sololearner here?

Yep 😎

MongoDB have no transactions

I advise Cockroachdb

Is it a thing in C++ as well?

@linuxer4fun yes

I advise Cockroachdb

That's quite hilarious for some reason.

I advise Cockroachdb

Ty, i am looking into that tbh.. XD

It even has support for kubernetes!

I advise Cockroachdb

You have any personal experience with such applications?

You have any personal experience with such applications?

I don't use it because I create database software, but I use the same algorithms as they do

I don't use it because I create database software, but I use the same algorithms as they do

I see, it's not the creating my own db that was hard, but the failsafes that i have to make wich i have no knowledge of.

Just scared tbh

I advise Cockroachdb

Tbh it sounds like something you wouldn't want to have in your code

Tbh it sounds like something you wouldn't want to have in your code

LOL

Tbh it sounds like something you wouldn't want to have in your code

It is named that way because killing the cluster is hard

For what? Try doing Windows Application in C and try to compile it on Linux.

Mmh Linux ts very complicated and not user friend but c is better bcz it convenient

Mmh Linux ts very complicated and not user friend but c is better bcz it convenient

Yeah if you're making a DOS based application in 2019... yeah with printf but just try string operations in C and see.

Yeah if you're making a DOS based application in 2019... yeah with printf but just try string operations in C and see.

Kk...

C isn't even used in Embedded System programming anymore.

That's not true at all. More and more embedded systems use c++ nowadays but C is still used as well

#ot

That's not true at all. More and more embedded systems use c++ nowadays but C is still used as well

Yeah, many companys and microcontrollers still use C, for a good reason. It depends on which level you develope your systems. For modern IoT stuff C++ is used, for real low level embedded devices, C is still predominant

Yeah, many companys and microcontrollers still use C, for a good reason. It depends on which level you develope your systems. For modern IoT stuff C++ is used, for real low level embedded devices, C is still predominant

I don't think it's primarily about the level but rather about the available tools and compiler and requirements. For modern IoT even JavaScript or Python are used

I don't think it's primarily about the level but rather about the available tools and compiler and requirements. For modern IoT even JavaScript or Python are used

One main reason why C is used on very low level is the ability to use it without runtime deps, the binary size and you can better predict the generated code.

Yep

It is named that way because killing the cluster is hard

One main reason why C is used on very low level is the ability to use it without runtime deps, the binary size and you can better predict the generated code.

You can also use C++ in freestanding mode to prevent linking against libstdc++ or whatever. The resulting binary is not larger than using C

CThe company I've worked for develops IoT. They highly use C++ and a OS called RTOS. The whole package (OS + Firmware) is just about 7MB in size and can be downloaded and installed with a bad modem signal quality.

I think C is more dominant in driver development

I know. But using C++ without runtime deps or templates isn't that much fun. Also, most of the time you don't *need* C++ on bare metal level.

jupp

We never needed it there

I know. But using C++ without runtime deps or templates isn't that much fun. Also, most of the time you don't *need* C++ on bare metal level.

What prevents you from using templates?

What prevents you from using templates?

The generated binary size

Templates bloat the binary

On bare metal, the code should be easy. Using fancy C++ stuff, where you have no control what the compiler does, can get a shoot in the own foot

On bare metal, the code should be easy. Using fancy C++ stuff, where you have no control what the compiler does, can get a shoot in the own foot

Absoluty this.

Thats why I said it depends on the level

If you're on IoT and has a OS on it, C++ is great

On bare metal it can be much pain

yeah

Guyz iwrote a program but it has brought me logical error and i can't identify it.can any 1 help me?

Templates bloat the binary

There are cases where using templates yielded smaller binaries as well.. So this is not generally true

+ compiler optimization unbloats everything

@olli: I think Shelly doesn't meant the rare cases where it *can* be an advatage to use templates. In my personal experience, escpecially MTP, caused for frustations when bugs needed to be fixed and the original source code author has left the company. It is more about control over the code and the behaviour of it.

@maximilian: The compiler can optimize better if the programer also knows how the optimizer/compiler works. I wouldn't rely on compiler optimization alone

I would

becuase the compiler knows what its doing

and it gets better and better