Is modern C++ becoming more prevalent? [closed]

Question

Here's how I think things have evolved.

The first generation of C++ programmers were C programmers, who were in fact using C++ as C with classes. Plus, the STL wasn't in place yet, so that's what C++ essentially was.

When the STL came out, that advanced things, but most of the people writing books, putting together curricula, and teaching classes had learned C first, then that extra C++ stuff, so the second generation learned from that perspective. As another answer noted, if you're comfortable writing regular for loops, changing to use std::for_each doesn't buy you much except the warm fuzzy feeling that you're doing things the "modern" way.

Now, we have instructors and book writers who have been using the whole of C++, and getting their instructions from that perspective, such as Koenig & Moo's Accelerated C++ and Stroustrup's new textbook. So we don't learn char* then std::strings.

It's an interesting lesson in how long it takes for "legacy" methods to be replaced, especially when they have a track record of effectiveness.

Absolutely yes. To me if you're not programming C++ in this "Modern C++" style as you term, then there's no point using C++! You might as well just use C. "Modern C++" should be the only way C++ is ever programmed in my opinion, and I would expect that everyone who uses C++ and has programmed in this "Modern" fashion would agree with me. In fact, I am always completely shocked when I hear of a C++ programmer who is unaware of things such as an auto_ptr or a ptr_vector. As far as I'm concerned, those ideas are basic and fundamental to C++, and so I couldn't imagine it any other way.

In the days of Windows 3.1, C was the standard. When C++ hit the developer market and later became ANSI standard, it was the new hotness. It popularized the OOP acronym and some of the basic design patterns using polymorphism.

Now, with the greater acceptance of low-barrier-to-entry managed platforms, like C#/.NET, there's less of a reason to use C++. So much of the developer base will have a choice and let's be honest: C++ is a bear to learn for a novice. With C#, you can just run with it.

That leaves really only the platforms that NEED C++ and the die-hard C++ evangelists to continue practicing the art. This is the community that needs and wants all the layers of abstraction that is considered "Modern C++".

So yes, I believe "Modern C++", as you state it, is becoming more prevalent. Albeit, it's prevalent with a different audience than has used it in the past.

I am one of these guys who learned how to work with the STL and heard a lot about RAII and good C++ programming practices from day 1. Looks like some of the most recommended books for learning C++ today (like Accelerated C++ and the Effective C++ series) focus on using STL tools instead of rolling up your own stuff, and also give lots of "rules" for effective (or "modern") programming.

But talking with friends I also noted some companies still work with "C with Classes", not "Modern C++". Maybe the culture proposed by the authors and users of the "Modern C++" will prevail someday :)

I think you just had a bad experience starting off.

You need to get yourself Scott Meyers Effective C++ books. I started on C++ in anger in 1999, my team lead made me sit and read Effective C++ and More Effective C++ before I was allowed to check in ANY code.

Most of his advice is on the lines of "Don't use this feature, but if you must, keep this in mind"

If you follow his advice you'll write good or "Modern" C++.

He has a book on STL now too, but that I haven't read.

In my C++ jobs, I've found the modern features to be increasingly used, and more people asked me about them in phone screenings and interviews. As far as I can tell, they're catching on.

I learned C++ originally as something like C with Classes; although the language had advanced far beyond that, the books I read and people I worked with were firmly stuck on "old C++". RAII something people would think about, rather than automatically do, and I remember reading some of the early articles on the problems of exception safety.

As pointed out, there's new books out now. Many of the old ones are still relevant, but they increasingly seem to be full of explaining why obviously bad ideas are bad. (Similarly, it's hard for modern readers to understand how revolutionary Freud's ideas of an unconscious mind were, since it's now conventional wisdom.)

Stroustrup just came out with a textbook, Programming: Principles and Practice Using C++. I bought it because I haven't yet failed to learn good stuff from a book of Stroustrup's, but haven't gotten past the first few chapters. So far, all I can say is that I approve of the way he's starting out, and it's at least a good introduction to how C++ should be used.

While working on the project I am presently involved with, there's a lot of C++ code which has evolved over a significant period of time (over 10 years now). The evolution you speak of is clearly visible there: the older code is often "C with classes" - raw pointers, char* strings and use of associated C functions, arrays etc; newer code uses ATL smart pointers and such to manage resources, but still sticks to hand-coded loops most of the time, and iterator is a rare sight; and the newest one is chock-full of STL containers, algorithms, shared_ptr (including custom deleters to manage handles etc), heavily genericized function and class templates, and so on. Most traditional "C with classes" coding techniques, such as raw unencapsulated pointers with manual lifetime management, are very much frowned upon in code reviews these days. Judging by this, it seems that your observation is accurate.

The most recent development seems to be a fad for C++0x lambdas - which has a positive side in that it also tilts the balance in favor of using standard algorithms over hand-coded loops, since now you can have all your code inline with algorithms as well.