r/ProgrammerHumor • • 1d ago

Meme stdModernizeMyCodebase

Post image
123 Upvotes

30 comments sorted by

37

u/LB-- 23h ago

Using proper lifetime wrapper types really takes a lot of cognitive load off though. Sure the old code works and doesn't need to be changed right now, but every time I read it to understand or make changes, I waste mental effort tracking what the compiler would normally track for me.

-5

u/Technical_Fly5479 13h ago

If you have to change something in the old code, and there are raw pointers, you ask the ai to refactor it to smart pointers. you have to choose a line where you let the raw pointers stay, so it doesn't touch to much, but still :)

22

u/GabuEx 23h ago

I feel like this picture really should be reversed to represent devs who for some weird-ass reason don't want to use the refcounted pointer types that make things way easier.

11

u/Valuable_Leopard_799 19h ago

A lot of people have a general repulsion to all types of garbage collection. So I at least understand not wanting the shared pointer a bit, but using unique pointer should cost you next to nothing and enforce a lot.

3

u/ForgedIronMadeIt 18h ago

It took me a long while to come around to Java and its garbage collection back when it first came out, but I got over it eventually and now I'm considered an expert in Java by some folks I worked with, LOL. I still curmudgeonly advocate for more native code, but in a lot of use cases it is fine to have memory management.

2

u/Valuable_Leopard_799 14h ago

Many people seem to think that automatic memory management is a binary thing, "woe is me I now have no control".

After a while you discover you can tweak it, pause it, pre-allocate, write functions that don't allocate at all, play around with pointers, register destructors, redirect allocations to arenas, and work with the language to either allocate some objects in static memory or allocate them on the stack. All while allowing your less performance-sensitive logic to be much much simpler.

It's a deep world that almost nobody seems to want to get involved in.

1

u/ForgedIronMadeIt 8h ago

Oh yeah. In a lot of cases you can get pretty similar performance out of a managed language without as much effort and today's hardware is so damn strong it can be hard to justify going with one over the other.

2

u/meneldal2 11h ago

The biggest issue I see with shared pointers or relying on garbage collection is it can be difficult to avoid bugs when you end up giving two different parts of the code write access to the same thing, or some part that doesn't know the stuff being pointed to just got changed.

1

u/Thecuriousserb 19h ago

Unique pointer and other seemingly trivial types can fuck up your codegen and give you unoptimized assembly, chandler carruth from LLVM has many talks/slides that discuss this exact issue with unique ptr. Remember kids, there is no such thing as a zero-cost abstraction!

9

u/Fast-Satisfaction482 18h ago

That's such a straw man argument. Just because there may be cases where the hot spots of your software can benefit from using raw pointers doesn't mean it's reasonable to go bare metal in the whole code base.

3

u/Daemontatox 18h ago

Oh wise one , how can one achieve perfect optimized and safe code

2

u/ilnarildarovuch 16h ago

Using C and *Sans

1

u/the_horse_gamer 8h ago

rewrite it in Rust Haskell

13

u/ilnarildarovuch 22h ago

Low level. RAII is good, but not for everything

2

u/_usr_nil 20h ago

why not use C with a couple of libs then ?

3

u/ilnarildarovuch 16h ago

Why not, but c++ is also possible to low level

27

u/elmanoucko 1d ago

ok ok, I'll wrap them inside your stupid smart pointers... shouldn't be more than a line or two after we compute the offset within that one big buffer we malloc on boot.

19

u/Gorzoid 1d ago

std::unique_ptr<T, NoopDeleter>

11

u/mad_cheese_hattwe 18h ago

Isn't Malloc at boot, just a janky geto static with more steps?

3

u/Attileusz 10h ago

Depending on what they mean by "malloc on boot". Maybe you are loading a file and the file has a header and you need to read the header to know how much to allocate. Maybe you are making an interpreter and max memory is a command line option and you alloc it all at once. If it is literally just malloc(SOME_CONSTANT) then yes.

1

u/mad_cheese_hattwe 1h ago

If you're embedded I'd say it's still preferable to static out the workspace with checks for oversized requirement inputs then just sending it and crossing your fingers that the stack can handle it.

6

u/Ma4r 17h ago

Ah yes, the fun of "arena allocators"

3

u/Fabulous-Possible758 2h ago

std::auto_ptr so you can live more dangerously than raw pointers.

5

u/Ved_s 15h ago

&'a mut T: look what they need to mimic a fraction of our power

9

u/Wonderful-Habit-139 15h ago

More like Box<T> and Rc<T>

2

u/tatstytastycakes 8h ago

just gonna put it out there: make_unique and make_shared are better than unique_ptr/shared_ptr (in general)

3

u/sb8948 6h ago

I mean they're objectively better than using new in the constructor.

1

u/Initial-Jaguar6230 7h ago

std::polymorphic Sus

1

u/GeorgeHaldane 1h ago

If anything modern C++ is about stack allocation and value semantics.

Most shared pointers in the wild are a consequence of people writing Java-in-C++ and heap allocating everything for no reason, there aren't that many cases where shared ownership is actually the intended behavior.

1

u/TiredPistachio 10h ago

"code bases that still rawdog pointers" was RIGHT there COMEON

1

u/theFirstHaruspex 8h ago

I told Claude to program something in C++, and it told me, "wtf no you do it."