Orthodox C++ (sometimes referred as C+) is minimal subset of C++ that improves C, but avoids all unnecessary things from so called Modern C++. It's exactly opposite of what Modern C++ suppose to be.
Back in late 1990 we were also modern-at-the-time C++ hipsters, and we used latest features. We told everyone also they should use those features too. Over time we learned it's unnecesary to use some language features just because they are there, or features we used proved to be bad (like RTTI, exceptions, and streams), or it backfired by unnecessary code complexity. If you think this is nonsense, just wait few more years and you'll hate Modern C++ too ("Why I don't spend time with Modern C++ anymore" archived LinkedIn article).
Code base written with Orthodox C++ limitations will be easer to understand, simpler, and it will build with older compilers. Projects written in Orthodox C++ subset will be more acceptable by other C++ projects because subset used by Orthodox C++ is unlikely to violate adopter's C++ subset preferences.
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
printf("hello, world\n");
return 0;
}
- C-like C++ is good start, if code doesn't require more complexity don't add unnecessary C++ complexities. In general case code should be readable to anyone who is familiar with C language.
- Don't do this, the end of "design rationale" in Orthodox C++ should be immedately after "Quite simple, and it is usable. EOF".
- Don't use exceptions.
Exception handling is the only C++ language feature which requires significant support from a complex runtime system, and it's the only C++ feature that has a runtime cost even if you don't use it – sometimes as additional hidden code at every object construction, destruction, and try block entry/exit, and always by limiting what the compiler's optimizer can do, often quite significantly. Yet C++ exception specifications are not enforced at compile time anyway, so you don't even get to know that you didn't forget to handle some error case! And on a stylistic note, the exception style of error handling doesn't mesh very well with the C style of error return codes, which causes a real schism in programming styles because a great deal of C++ code must invariably call down into underlying C libraries.
- Don't use RTTI.
- Don't use C++ runtime wrapper for C runtime includes (
<cstdio>
,<cmath>
, etc.), use C runtime instead (<stdio.h>
,<math.h>
, etc.) - Don't use stream (
<iostream>
,<stringstream>
, etc.), use printf style functions instead. - Don't use anything from STL that allocates memory, unless you don't care about memory management. See CppCon 2015: Andrei Alexandrescu "std::allocator Is to Allocation what std::vector Is to Vexation" talk, and Why many AAA gamedev studios opt out of the STL thread for more info.
- Don't use metaprogramming excessively for academic masturbation. Use it in moderation, only where necessary, and where it reduces code complexity.
- Wary of any features introduced in current standard C++, ideally wait for improvements of those feature in next iteration of standard. Example
constexpr
from C++11 became usable in C++14 (per Jason Turner cppbestpractices.com curator)
Due to lag of adoption of C++ standard by compilers, OS distributions, etc. it's usually not possible to start using new useful language features immediately. General guideline is: if current year is C++year+5 then it's safe to start selectively using C++year's features. For example, if standard is C++11, and current year >= 2016 then it's probably safe. If standard required to compile your code is C++17 and year is 2016 then obviously you're practicing "Resume Driven Development" methodology. If you're doing this for open source project, then you're not creating something others can use.
UPDATE As of January 14th 2022, Orthodox C++ committee approved use of C++17.
- Embedded C++
- Nominal C++
- Sane C++
- Why Your C++ Should Be Simple
- C++, it’s not you. It’s me.
- "Keep It C-mple" Alexander Radchenko Sydney C++ Meetup
- A dialect of C++
- Any C source that compiles with C++ compiler.
- DOOM 3 BFG
- Qt (when built with no-rtti, no-exceptions)
- dear imgui
- bgfx
- TheForge
- Oryol
- Network Next SDK
Although I don't really see much of a problem w.r.t. usage with
FILE
, I simply do not see how it "encourages ignoring checking return code". Could you elaborate on that @swang206 ?unique_ptr
only does the job of automatically handling simple direct ownership of some memory, it doesn't do any kind of error checking itself or anything I can see that would encourage "ignoring checking return code"...Also I don't get what you mean by "You cannot use it as an observer", not being an observer is literally the entire point of
unique_ptr
... I suppose one could introduce something likeobserver_ptr
for that purpose (it's actually instd::experimental
rn) but I don't think that's a blemish on the design of something made specifically for the purpose of owning a pointer (such that aunique_ptr
always owns what it points to).I also agree that passing
unique_ptr const&
is basically passingvoid **
and that doing so needlessly is bad, but unless you don't understandunique_ptr
, you're not likely to make such a mistake.(And that last remark is rather ridiculous. Unless you're on a stupid configuration like a GCC deliberately built without libstdc++, it's not going to be a problem)