Comments for Josh Haberman http://blog.reverberate.org parsing, performance, minimalism with C99 Fri, 19 Feb 2010 23:33:30 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 Comment on Torn over the C++ question by Anonymous http://blog.reverberate.org/2009/12/02/torn-over-the-c-question/comment-page-1/#comment-1529 Anonymous Fri, 19 Feb 2010 23:33:30 +0000 http://blog.reverberate.org/?p=301#comment-1529 It's trivial to wrap your C implementation so that it can be called directly from C++. So translating your implementation from C to C++ provides no real benefit, it's more like busy work. Plus C++ is such an ugly language that its hard to imagine that it won't die out over the next decade, replaced by C#/Objective C/Java etc. C, on the other hand, has virtues of simplicity, clarity, portability, and performance that other programming languages have yet to supplant. It’s trivial to wrap your C implementation so that it can be called directly from C++. So translating your implementation from C to C++ provides no real benefit, it’s more like busy work. Plus C++ is such an ugly language that its hard to imagine that it won’t die out over the next decade, replaced by C#/Objective C/Java etc. C, on the other hand, has virtues of simplicity, clarity, portability, and performance that other programming languages have yet to supplant.

]]> Comment on Torn over the C++ question by Kate http://blog.reverberate.org/2009/12/02/torn-over-the-c-question/comment-page-1/#comment-1525 Kate Wed, 06 Jan 2010 19:01:33 +0000 http://blog.reverberate.org/?p=301#comment-1525 Hi. Don't forget to check the return value of malloc(). You might also enjoy this: http://iq0.com/notes/deep.nesting.html Hi. Don’t forget to check the return value of malloc(). You might also enjoy this:
http://iq0.com/notes/deep.nesting.html

]]> Comment on Gazelle/upb status and plans (aka: On Releasing) by Dennis http://blog.reverberate.org/2009/11/28/gazelleupb-status-and-plans-aka-on-releasing/comment-page-1/#comment-1523 Dennis Thu, 31 Dec 2009 16:03:47 +0000 http://blog.reverberate.org/?p=293#comment-1523 You should name it "Gazelle Forever". I kid :) You should name it “Gazelle Forever”.

I kid :)

]]> Comment on Torn over the C++ question by blankthemuffin http://blog.reverberate.org/2009/12/02/torn-over-the-c-question/comment-page-1/#comment-1518 blankthemuffin Sun, 27 Dec 2009 23:04:36 +0000 http://blog.reverberate.org/?p=301#comment-1518 I vote to stick with C for another reason, integration with other languages. If your project is a nice C library, it's vastly easier for people using other languages, C, Python, whatever, to interface with your library rather than having to re-implement it. C++ is imo an awful choice for a library because it ends up restricting this to other things written in C++ (unless of course you wrap it up in a C abi but that is messy). I'd prefer a base in C with a C++ wrapper as required. I vote to stick with C for another reason, integration with other languages. If your project is a nice C library, it’s vastly easier for people using other languages, C, Python, whatever, to interface with your library rather than having to re-implement it.

C++ is imo an awful choice for a library because it ends up restricting this to other things written in C++ (unless of course you wrap it up in a C abi but that is messy).

I’d prefer a base in C with a C++ wrapper as required.

]]> Comment on Torn over the C++ question by nobody http://blog.reverberate.org/2009/12/02/torn-over-the-c-question/comment-page-1/#comment-1500 nobody Mon, 14 Dec 2009 23:09:38 +0000 http://blog.reverberate.org/?p=301#comment-1500 GCC 4.5 should get link-time optimization which will hopefully help binary size a lot. ultimately though, i still find myself reaching for C, for the ease of binding to other languages and the smaller size. i still like to keep my code C++ compatible and run it through the C++ compiler occasionally though, just because it's much stricter on typing. GCC 4.5 should get link-time optimization which will hopefully help binary size a lot. ultimately though, i still find myself reaching for C, for the ease of binding to other languages and the smaller size. i still like to keep my code C++ compatible and run it through the C++ compiler occasionally though, just because it’s much stricter on typing.

]]> Comment on Torn over the C++ question by George P. http://blog.reverberate.org/2009/12/02/torn-over-the-c-question/comment-page-1/#comment-1496 George P. Wed, 09 Dec 2009 02:59:35 +0000 http://blog.reverberate.org/?p=301#comment-1496 I have a hard time accepting the comment that C++ compilers aren't very good at keeping things small. Which compiler have you used? I would agree that C++ nuances are complicated and that you need to read volumes of books to better grasp the details of optimization. I have a hard time accepting the comment that C++ compilers aren’t very good at keeping things small. Which compiler have you used? I would agree that C++ nuances are complicated and that you need to read volumes of books to better grasp the details of optimization.

]]> Comment on Porting upb to C++? by Rehno Lindeque http://blog.reverberate.org/2009/11/28/porting-upb-to-c/comment-page-1/#comment-1493 Rehno Lindeque Sun, 06 Dec 2009 11:50:10 +0000 http://blog.reverberate.org/?p=287#comment-1493 I've also been lazily contemplating upb for use in my projects. Since I tend to write my code in strange languages like D and Haskell, I'll second the other's comments! I would not mind having a thin C++ wrapper though. I’ve also been lazily contemplating upb for use in my projects. Since I tend to write my code in strange languages like D and Haskell, I’ll second the other’s comments! I would not mind having a thin C++ wrapper though.

]]> Comment on Torn over the C++ question by Alejandro M. http://blog.reverberate.org/2009/12/02/torn-over-the-c-question/comment-page-1/#comment-1490 Alejandro M. Thu, 03 Dec 2009 14:47:30 +0000 http://blog.reverberate.org/?p=301#comment-1490 great choice! :-) great choice! :-)

]]> Comment on Porting upb to C++? by Sam Quigley http://blog.reverberate.org/2009/11/28/porting-upb-to-c/comment-page-1/#comment-1487 Sam Quigley Wed, 02 Dec 2009 07:52:42 +0000 http://blog.reverberate.org/?p=287#comment-1487 Have you checked with the security team about this yet? C++ might reduce the number of potentially unsafe manual casting that goes on in the code, but it also introduces a whole host of (often very subtle) security risks of its own… (For example, see: http://chargen.matasano.com/chargen/2009/10/9/a-c-challenge.html and some of the links there) Depending on how much you're planning on changing — and depending on your security folks — it might well be faster to tighten up the current codebase than to rewrite it. (It's been a little while since I looked at the code, and I certainly haven't tried to do a formal review, but I didn't notice too many scary things going on in there…) On a more selfish note — I too was eyeing upb for use in a (pure C) project of mine, and would just as soon see it stay C… So take my comments with a grain of salt. :) -sq Have you checked with the security team about this yet? C++ might reduce the number of potentially unsafe manual casting that goes on in the code, but it also introduces a whole host of (often very subtle) security risks of its own… (For example, see: http://chargen.matasano.com/chargen/2009/10/9/a-c-challenge.html and some of the links there) Depending on how much you’re planning on changing — and depending on your security folks — it might well be faster to tighten up the current codebase than to rewrite it. (It’s been a little while since I looked at the code, and I certainly haven’t tried to do a formal review, but I didn’t notice too many scary things going on in there…)

On a more selfish note — I too was eyeing upb for use in a (pure C) project of mine, and would just as soon see it stay C… So take my comments with a grain of salt. :)

-sq

]]> Comment on Porting upb to C++? by Alejandro M. http://blog.reverberate.org/2009/11/28/porting-upb-to-c/comment-page-1/#comment-1485 Alejandro M. Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:59:39 +0000 http://blog.reverberate.org/?p=287#comment-1485 assuming the generated C code is good, why not? ;-) thanks! assuming the generated C code is good, why not? ;-) thanks!

]]>