Download the Ace AWS DEA-C01 Exam App: iOS - Android
Is Google’s Carbon Programming language the Right Successor to C++?
For years, C++ has been the go-to language for high-performance systems programming. But with the rise of multicore processors and GPUs, the need for a language that can take advantage of parallelism has never been greater. Enter Carbon, Google’s answer to the problem. But is it the right successor to C++?
Google has been in the news a lot lately for their new programming language, Carbon. It’s being billed as the successor to C++, but is it really? Let’s take a closer look.
On the surface, Carbon and C++ have a lot in common. They’re both statically typed, object-oriented languages with a focus on performance. They both have a learning curve, but once you know them, you can write code that is both readable and maintainable. However, there are some key differences that make Carbon a more attractive option for modern programmers.
For one, Carbon is garbage collected. This means that you don’t have to worry about manually managing memory, which can be a pain in C++. Carbon also has better support for concurrency than C++. With the rise of multicore processors, this is an important consideration. Finally, Carbon has a more modern standard library than C++. This includes features like string interpolation and pattern matching that make common tasks easier to accomplish.
According to Terry Lambert, Carbon Programming language is probably not the successor of C++. His reason are:
“Single inheritance is a deal-breaker for me, even though the eC++ utilized by IOKit in macOS and iOS has the same restrictions.
Although it specifies stronger type enforcement, which would — in theory — also eliminate RTTI and the reflection, which eC++ has historically eliminated as well, it’s doing it via expression-defined typing, rather than explicitly eliminating it. I expect that it would also prevent use of dynamic_cast, although that’s not explicitly called out.
Let’s see if Linus approves of someone compiling the Linux kernel with Carbon, and then starting to add Carbon syntax code, into that port of Linux.”
On the surface, Carbon seems like a great choice to replace C++. It is designed to be more reliable and easier to use than C++. In addition, it is faster and can be used for a variety of applications. However, there are some drawbacks to using Carbon. First, it is not compatible with all operating systems. Second, it does not have all of the features of C++. Third, it is not as widely used as C++. Finally, it is still in development and has not been released yet.
These drawbacks may seem like deal breakers, but they don’t necessarily mean that Carbon is not the right successor to C++. First, while Carbon is not compatible with all operating systems, it is compatible with the most popular ones. Second, while it does not have all of the features of C++, it has the most important ones. Third, while it is not as widely used as C++, it is gaining popularity rapidly. Finally, while it is still in development, it is expected to be released soon.
What Is Carbon? Carbon is a statically typed systems programming language developed by Google. It is based on C++ and shares a similar syntax. However, Carbon introduces several new features that make it better suited for parallelism. For example, Carbon provides first-class support for threads and synchronization primitives. It also offers a number of built-in data structures that are designed for concurrent access. Finally, Carbon comes with a toolchain that makes it easy to build and debug parallel programs.
Why Was Carbon Created? Google’s primary motivation for developing Carbon was to improve the performance of its search engine. To do this, they needed a language that could take advantage of multicore processors and GPUs. C++ was not well suited for this purpose because it lacked support for threading and synchronization. As a result, Google decided to create their own language that would be purpose-built for parallelism.
Is Carbon The Right Successor To C++? In many ways, yes. Carbon addresses many of the shortcomings of C++ when it comes to parallelism. However, there are some drawbacks. First, Carbon is still in its infancy and lacks many of the features and libraries that have made C++ so popular over the years. Second, because it is designed specifically for parallelism, it may be less suitable for other purposes such as embedded systems programming or network programming. Overall, though, Carbon looks like a promising successor to C++ and is worth keeping an eye on in the future.
Conclusion: So, is Google’s new Carbon programming language the right successor to C++? We think that Google’s Carbon programming language has the potential to be a great successor to C++.
With its garbage collection, better support for concurrency, and modern standard library, Carbon has everything that today’s programmer needs.
It is designed to be more reliable and easier to use than its predecessor. In addition, it is faster and can be used for a variety of applications. However, there are some drawbacks to using Carbon that should be considered before making the switch from C++.
So if you’re looking for a new language to learn, we recommend giving Carbon a try.
Programming paradigms are a way to classify programming languages based on their features. Languages can be classified into multiple paradigms.
Some paradigms are concerned mainly with implications for the execution model of the language, such as allowing side effects, or whether the sequence of operations is defined by the execution model. Other paradigms are concerned mainly with the way that code is organized, such as grouping a code into units along with the state that is modified by the code. Yet others are concerned mainly with the style of syntax and grammar.
Common programming paradigms include:
imperative in which the programmer instructs the machine how to change its state,
procedural which groups instructions into procedures,
object-oriented which groups instructions with the part of the state they operate on,
declarative in which the programmer merely declares properties of the desired result, but not how to compute it
functional in which the desired result is declared as the value of a series of function applications,
logic in which the desired result is declared as the answer to a question about a system of facts and rules,
mathematical in which the desired result is declared as the solution of an optimization problem
reactive in which the desired result is declared with data streams and the propagation of change
Research has shown that work sample tests are VERY effective at determining if someone will we a good fit for a job. But here’s the problem: Work sample tests require applicants to perform tasks or work activities that mirror the tasks employees perform on the job.
When was the last time you had to “reverse an integer” or “find the longest substring without repeating characters”. These types of tests don’t mirror the tasks that software developers perform on the job.
It’s like testing an architect by having them build a house out of playing cards. Leetcode problems are just brain teasers.
If you want to administer a work sample test, have them do a code review, build a tiny feature in your product, or read and explain some part of your product code. (Every developer knows 90% of your time is spent reading code.)
Developers are tired of Leetcode interviews. It’s time to stop wasting everyone’s time.
Proqramlaşdırma öyrənmək, bir çox insan üçün çətin və çox vaxt sərf edən bir proses ola bilər. Təcrübəsiz proqramçılar üçün müəyyən…Continue reading on Medium »
I confess I never understood pseudo-elements very well in CSS. Even though I’m not a professional web developer, I’ve seen enough cool…Continue reading on Medium »
Programmers are always looking for ways to make their code more efficient. One way to do this is to use a faster loop. Python is a high-level programming language that is widely used by developers and software engineers. It is known for its readability and ease of use. However, one downside of Python is that its loops can be slow. This can be a problem when you need to process large amounts of data. There are several ways to make Python loops faster. One way is to use a faster looping construct, such as C. Another way is to use an optimized library, such as NumPy. Finally, you can vectorize your code, which means converting it into a format that can be run on a GPU or other parallel computing platform. By using these techniques, you can significantly speed up your Python code.
According to Vladislav Zorov, If not talking about NumPy or something, try to use list comprehension expressions where possible. Those are handled by the C code of the Python interpreter, instead of looping in Python. Basically same idea like the NumPy solution, you just don’t want code running in Python.
Example: (Python 3.0)
lst = [n for n in range(1000000)]
def loops():
newlst = []
for n in lst:
newlst.append(n * 2)
return newlst
def lstcomp():
return [n * 2 for n in lst]
from timeit import timeit
print(timeit(loops, number=100))
#18.953254899999592 seconds
print(timeit(lstcomp, number=100))
#11.669047399991541 seconds
Or Do this in Python 2.0
Python list traversing tip:
Instead of this: for i in range(len(l)): x = l[i]
Use this for i, x in enumerate(l): …
TO keep track of indices and values inside a loop.
Twice faster, and the code looks better.
Another option is to write loops in C instead of Python. This can be done by using a Python extension module such as pyximport. By doing this, programmers can take advantage of the speed of C while still using the convenient syntax of Python.
Finally, developers can also improve the performance of their code by making use of caching. By caching values that are computed inside a loop, programmers can avoid having to recalculate them each time through the loop. By taking these steps, programmers can make their Python code more efficient and faster.
Very Important: Don’t worry about code efficiency until you find yourself needing to worry about code efficiency.
The place where you think about efficiency is within the logic of your implementations.
Programmers are often seen as a eccentric breed. There are many myths about computer programmers that circulate both within and outside of the tech industry. Some of these myths are harmless misconceptions, while others can be damaging to both individual programmers and the industry as a whole.
Here are 10 of the most insane myths about computer programmers:
1. Programmers are all socially awkward nerds who live in their parents’ basements. 2. Programmers only care about computers and have no other interests. 3. Programmers are all genius-level intellects with photographic memories. 4. Programmers can code anything they set their minds to, no matter how complex or impossible it may seem. 5. Programmers only work on solitary projects and never collaborate with others. 6. Programmers write code that is completely error-free on the first try. 7. All programmers use the same coding languages and tools. 8. Programmers can easily find jobs anywhere in the world thanks to the worldwide demand for their skills. 9. Programmers always work in dark, cluttered rooms with dozens of monitors surrounding them. 10. Programmers can’t have successful personal lives because they spend all their time working on code.”
Another Top 10 Myths about computer programmers in details are:
Myth #1: Programmers are lazy.
This couldn’t be further from the truth! Programmers are some of the hardest working people in the tech industry. They are constantly working to improve their skills and keep up with the latest advancements in technology.
Myth #2: Programmers don’t need social skills.
While it is true that programmers don’t need to be extroverts, they do need to have strong social skills. Programmers need to be able to communicate effectively with other members of their team, as well as with clients and customers.
Myth #3: All programmers are nerds.
There is a common misconception that all programmers are nerdy introverts who live in their parents’ basements. This could not be further from the truth! While there are certainly some nerds in the programming community, there are also a lot of outgoing, social people. In fact, programming is a great field for people who want to use their social skills to build relationships and solve problems.
Myth #4: Programmers are just code monkeys.
Programmers are often seen as nothing more than people who write code all day long. However, this could not be further from the truth! Programmers are critical thinkers who use their analytical skills to solve complex problems. They are also creative people who use their coding skills to build new and innovative software applications.
Myth #5: Anyone can learn to code.
This myth is particularly damaging, as it dissuades people from pursuing careers in programming. The reality is that coding is a difficult skill to learn, and it takes years of practice to become a proficient programmer. While it is true that anyone can learn to code, it is important to understand that it is not an easy task.
This myth is simply not true! Programmers use math every day, whether they’re calculating algorithms or working with big data sets. In fact, many programmers have degrees in mathematics or computer science because they know that math skills are essential for success in the field.
Myth #7: Programming is a dead-end job.
This myth likely comes from the fact that many people view programming as nothing more than code monkey work. However, this could not be further from the truth! Programmers have a wide range of career options available to them, including software engineering, web development, and data science.
Myth #8: Programmers only work on single projects.
Again, this myth likely comes from the outside world’s view of programming as nothing more than coding work. In reality, programmers often work on multiple projects at once. They may be responsible for coding new features for an existing application, developing a new application from scratch, or working on multiple projects simultaneously as part of a team.
Myth #9: Programming is easy once you know how to do it .
This myth is particularly insidious, as it leads people to believe that they can simply learn how to code overnight and become successful programmers immediately thereafter . The reality is that learning how to code takes time , practice , and patience . Even experienced programmers still make mistakes sometimes !
Myth #10: Programmers don’t need formal education
This myth likely stems from the fact that many successful programmers are self-taught . However , this does not mean that formal education is unnecessary . Many employers prefer candidates with degrees in computer science or related fields , and formal education can give you an important foundation in programming concepts and theory .
Myth #11: That they put in immense amounts of time at the job
I worked for 38 years programming computers. During that time, there were two times that I needed to put in significant extra times at the job. The first two years, I spent more time to get acclimated to the job (which I then left at age of 22) with a Blood Pressure 153/105. Not a good situation. The second time was at the end of my career where I was the only person who could get this project completed (due to special knowledge of the area) in the timeframe required. I spent about five months putting a lot of time in.
Myth #12: They need to know advanced math
Some programmers may need to know advanced math, but in the areas where I (and others) were involved with, being able to estimate resulting values and visualization skills were more important. One needs to know that a displayed number is not correct. Visualization skills is the ability to see the “big picture” and envision the associated tasks necessary to make the big picture correctly. You need to be able to decompose each of the associated tasks to limit complexity and make it easier to debug. In general the less complex code is, the fewer errors/bugs and the easier it is to identify and fix them.
Myth #13: Programmers remember thousands lines of code.
No, we don’t. We know approximate part of the program where the problem could be. And could localize it using a debugger or logs – that’s all.
Myth #14: Everyone could be a programmer.
No. One must have not only desire to be a programmer but also has some addiction to it. Programming is not closed or elite art. It’s just another human occupation. And as not everyone could be a doctor or a businessman – as not everyone could be a programmer.
Myth #15: Simple business request could be easily implemented
No. The ease of implementation is defined by model used inside the software. And the thing which looks simple to business owners could be almost impossible to implement without significantly changing the model – which could take weeks – and vice versa: seemingly hard business problem could sometimes be implemented in 15 minutes.
Myth #16: Please fix <put any electronic device here>or setup my printer – you are a programmer!
Yes, I’m a programmer – neither an electronic engineer nor a system administrator. I write programs, not fix devices, setup software or hardware!
As you can see , there are many myths about computer programmers circulating within and outside of the tech industry . These myths can be damaging to both individual programmers and the industry as a whole . It’s important to dispel these myths so that we can continue attracting top talent into the field of programming !
Today I Learned (TIL) You learn something new every day; what did you learn today? Submit interesting and specific facts about something that you just found out here.
Reddit Science This community is a place to share and discuss new scientific research. Read about the latest advances in astronomy, biology, medicine, physics, social science, and more. Find and submit new publications and popular science coverage of current research.
At the end of August this year, ASBC voted again in favor of IBA by 21–14. Yesterday, the Swiss Federal Tribunal has rejected the International Boxing Association's (IBA) appeal on the Court Arbitration of Sport's (CAS) and the International Olympic Committee's (IOC) decision to strip recognition of IBA as governing body of olympic boxing events. (Still looking for other articles about this...) submitted by /u/gho87 [link] [comments]