6 ms·

C and C++ do have very different memory models, C essentially follows the "types are a way to decode memory" model while C++ has an actual object model where ac

by mawww 1y ago

C and C++ do have very different memory models, C essentially follows the "types are a way to decode memory" model while C++ has an actual object model where accessing memory using the wrong type is UB and objects have actual lifetimes. Not that this would necessarily lead to performance differences. When people claim C++ to be faster than C, that is usually understood as C++ provides tools that makes writing fast code easier than C, not that the fastest possible implementation in C++ is faster than the fastest possible implementation in C, which is trivially false as in both cases the fastest possible implementation is the same unmaintainable soup of inline assembly. The typical example used to claim C++ is faster than C is sorting, where C due to its lack of templates and overloading needs `qsort` to work with void pointers and a pointer to function, making it very hard on the optimiser, when C++'s `std::sort` gets the actual types it works on and can directly inline the comparator, making the optimiser work easier.

ryao 1y ago
Try putting objects into two linked lists in C using sys/queue.h and in C++ using the STL. Try sorting the linked lists. You will find C outperforms C++. That is because C’s data structures are intrusive, such that you do not have external nodes pointing to the objects to cause an extra random memory access. The C++ STL requires an externally allocated node that points to the object in at least one of the data structures, since only 1 container can manage the object lifetimes to be able to concatenate its node with the object as part of the allocation. If you wish to avoid having object lifetimes managed by containers, things will become even slower, because now both data structures will have an extra random memory access for every object. This is not even considering the extra allocations and deallocations needed for the external nodes. That said, external comparators are a weakness of generic C library functions. I once manually inlined them in some performance critical code using the C preprocessor: https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/commit/677c6f8457943fe5b56d7aa8807010a104563e4a https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/commit/677c6f8457943fe5b56d7a...
- jandrewrogers 1y ago
  It seems like your argument is predicated on using the C++ STL. Most people don’t for anything that matters and it is trivial to write alternative implementations that have none of the weaknesses you are arguing. You have created a bit of a strawman. One of the strengths of C++ is that it is well-suited to compile-time codegen of hyper-optimized data structures. In fact, that is one of the features that makes it much better than C for performance engineering work.
  - ryao 1y ago
    Most C++ code I have seen uses the STL. As for “hyper optimized” data structures, you already have those in C. See the B-Tree code those binary search routine I patched to run faster. Nothing C++ adds improves upon what you can do performance wise in C. You have other sources of slow downs in C++, since the abstractions have a tendency to hide bloat, such as excessive dynamic memory usage, use of exceptions and code just outright compiling inefficiently compared to similar code in C. Too much inlining can also be a problem, since it puts pressure on CPU instruction caches.
    - jandrewrogers 1y ago
      This is not a convincing argument for C. None of this matches my experience across many companies. In particular, the specific things you cite — excessive dynamic memory usage, exceptions, bloat — are typically only raised by people who don’t actually use C++ in the kinds of serious applications where C++ is the tool of choice. Sure, you could write C++ the way you describe but that is just poor code. You can do that in any language. For example, exceptions have been explicitly disabled on every C++ code base I’ve ever worked on, whether FAANG or a smaller industrial company. It isn’t compatible with some idiomatic high-performance software architectures so it would be weird to even turn it on. C++ allows you to strip all bloat at compile-time and provides tools to make it easy in a way that C could only dream of, a standard metaprogramming optimization. Excessive dynamic allocation isn’t a thing in real code bases unless you are naive. It is idiomatic for many C++ code bases to never do any dynamic allocation at runtime, never mind “excessive”. C++ has many weaknesses. You are failing to identify any that a serious C++ practitioner would recognize as valid. In all of this you also failed to make an argument for why anyone should use C. It isn’t like C++ can’t use C code.
- gpderetta 1y ago
  Unfortunately Stepanov and the STL are widely misunderstood. Stepanov core contributions is the set of concepts underlying the STL and the iterator model for generic programming. The set of algorithms and datastructures in the STL was only supposed to be a beginning, was never supposed to be a finished collection. Unfortunately many, if not most treat it that way. But if you look beyond, you can find a whole world that extend the stl. If you are not happy, say, with unordered_map, you can find more or less drop in replacements that use the same iterator based interface, preserve value semantics and use the a common language to describe iterator and reference invalidation. Regarding your specific use case, if you want intrusive lists you can use boost.intrusive which provides containers with STL semantics except it leaves ownership of the nodes to the user. The containers do not even need to be lists: you can put the same node in multiple lists linked list, binary trees (multiple flavors), and hash maps (although this is not fully intrusive) at the same time. These days I don't generally need boost much, but I still reach for boost.intrusive quite often.
  - ryao 1y ago
    I have met a number of people who will not use the boost libraries. It has been so long that I have long forgotten their reasons. My guess is that it had to do with binary compatibility issues.
- pjmlp 1y ago
  Except, nothing forbids me to use two linked lists in C++ using sys/queue.h, that is exactly one of the reason why Bjarne built C++ on top of C, and also unfortunely a reason why we have security pain points in C++.
  - ryao 1y ago
    Yet the C++ community is continually trying to get people to stay away from anything involving C. That said, newer C headers using _Generic for example are not usable from C++.
    - pjmlp 1y ago
      Because C++ was "TypeScript for C", plenty of room to improvement that WG 14 refuses to act on for the last 50 years. Yes, most language features past the C89 subset are not supported, besides the C standard library, because C++ has much better alternatives, like why _Generic when templates are a much saner approach, than type dispatching with the pre-processor. However that is besides the point, 99% of C89 code minus a few differences, is valid C++ code, and if the situation so requires, C++ code can be exactly the same way. And lets not forget most FOSS projects have never moved beyond C89/C99 anyway, so stuff like _Generic is of relative importance.
      - ryao 1y ago
        C, unlike C++, does not really force new versions onto you, even if dependencies begin using them. That said, Linux switched to C11. Newer versions of C will gradually be adopted, despite the incompatibilities this causes for C++. As for WG 14, they incorporated numerous C++isms into C. While you claim that they did not go far enough, I am sure you will find many who would say that they went too far.
        pjmlp 1y ago
        I very much doubt it, when someone decides to make full of use of recent ISO C on a C library header file. I claim they aren't focused on what matters, we don't need C++isms into C, we already have C++, and C should have been done as language back in C89. Anyone that wanted more has always been able to use C++ instead, or Objective-C on Apple/NeXT land. What we need is for WG14 to finally take security regarding strings, arrays seriouslys, not yet another reboot of functions using (ptr, length) pairs.
uecker 1y ago
In my experience, templates usually cause a lot of bloat that slows things down. Sure, in microbenchmarks it always looks good to specialize everything at compile time, whether this is what you want in a larger project is a different question. And then, also a C compiler can specialize a sort routine for your types just fine. It just needs to be able too look into it, i.e. it does not work for qsort from the libc. I agree to your point that C++ comes with fast implementations of algorithms out-of-the-box. In C you need to assemble a toolbox yourself. But once you have done this, I see no downside.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

by mawww 1y ago

ryao 1y ago

Try putting objects into two linked lists in C using sys/queue.h and in C++ using the STL. Try sorting the linked lists. You will find C outperforms C++. That is because C’s data structures are intrusive, such that you do not have external nodes pointing to the objects to cause an extra random memory access. The C++ STL requires an externally allocated node that points to the object in at least one of the data structures, since only 1 container can manage the object lifetimes to be able to concatenate its node with the object as part of the allocation. If you wish to avoid having object lifetimes managed by containers, things will become even slower, because now both data structures will have an extra random memory access for every object. This is not even considering the extra allocations and deallocations needed for the external nodes. That said, external comparators are a weakness of generic C library functions. I once manually inlined them in some performance critical code using the C preprocessor: https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/commit/677c6f8457943fe5b56d7aa8807010a104563e4a https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/commit/677c6f8457943fe5b56d7a...

jandrewrogers 1y ago
It seems like your argument is predicated on using the C++ STL. Most people don’t for anything that matters and it is trivial to write alternative implementations that have none of the weaknesses you are arguing. You have created a bit of a strawman. One of the strengths of C++ is that it is well-suited to compile-time codegen of hyper-optimized data structures. In fact, that is one of the features that makes it much better than C for performance engineering work.
- ryao 1y ago
  Most C++ code I have seen uses the STL. As for “hyper optimized” data structures, you already have those in C. See the B-Tree code those binary search routine I patched to run faster. Nothing C++ adds improves upon what you can do performance wise in C. You have other sources of slow downs in C++, since the abstractions have a tendency to hide bloat, such as excessive dynamic memory usage, use of exceptions and code just outright compiling inefficiently compared to similar code in C. Too much inlining can also be a problem, since it puts pressure on CPU instruction caches.
  - jandrewrogers 1y ago
    This is not a convincing argument for C. None of this matches my experience across many companies. In particular, the specific things you cite — excessive dynamic memory usage, exceptions, bloat — are typically only raised by people who don’t actually use C++ in the kinds of serious applications where C++ is the tool of choice. Sure, you could write C++ the way you describe but that is just poor code. You can do that in any language. For example, exceptions have been explicitly disabled on every C++ code base I’ve ever worked on, whether FAANG or a smaller industrial company. It isn’t compatible with some idiomatic high-performance software architectures so it would be weird to even turn it on. C++ allows you to strip all bloat at compile-time and provides tools to make it easy in a way that C could only dream of, a standard metaprogramming optimization. Excessive dynamic allocation isn’t a thing in real code bases unless you are naive. It is idiomatic for many C++ code bases to never do any dynamic allocation at runtime, never mind “excessive”. C++ has many weaknesses. You are failing to identify any that a serious C++ practitioner would recognize as valid. In all of this you also failed to make an argument for why anyone should use C. It isn’t like C++ can’t use C code.
gpderetta 1y ago
Unfortunately Stepanov and the STL are widely misunderstood. Stepanov core contributions is the set of concepts underlying the STL and the iterator model for generic programming. The set of algorithms and datastructures in the STL was only supposed to be a beginning, was never supposed to be a finished collection. Unfortunately many, if not most treat it that way. But if you look beyond, you can find a whole world that extend the stl. If you are not happy, say, with unordered_map, you can find more or less drop in replacements that use the same iterator based interface, preserve value semantics and use the a common language to describe iterator and reference invalidation. Regarding your specific use case, if you want intrusive lists you can use boost.intrusive which provides containers with STL semantics except it leaves ownership of the nodes to the user. The containers do not even need to be lists: you can put the same node in multiple lists linked list, binary trees (multiple flavors), and hash maps (although this is not fully intrusive) at the same time. These days I don't generally need boost much, but I still reach for boost.intrusive quite often.
- ryao 1y ago
  I have met a number of people who will not use the boost libraries. It has been so long that I have long forgotten their reasons. My guess is that it had to do with binary compatibility issues.
pjmlp 1y ago
Except, nothing forbids me to use two linked lists in C++ using sys/queue.h, that is exactly one of the reason why Bjarne built C++ on top of C, and also unfortunely a reason why we have security pain points in C++.
- ryao 1y ago
  Yet the C++ community is continually trying to get people to stay away from anything involving C. That said, newer C headers using _Generic for example are not usable from C++.
  - pjmlp 1y ago
    Because C++ was "TypeScript for C", plenty of room to improvement that WG 14 refuses to act on for the last 50 years. Yes, most language features past the C89 subset are not supported, besides the C standard library, because C++ has much better alternatives, like why _Generic when templates are a much saner approach, than type dispatching with the pre-processor. However that is besides the point, 99% of C89 code minus a few differences, is valid C++ code, and if the situation so requires, C++ code can be exactly the same way. And lets not forget most FOSS projects have never moved beyond C89/C99 anyway, so stuff like _Generic is of relative importance.
    - ryao 1y ago
      C, unlike C++, does not really force new versions onto you, even if dependencies begin using them. That said, Linux switched to C11. Newer versions of C will gradually be adopted, despite the incompatibilities this causes for C++. As for WG 14, they incorporated numerous C++isms into C. While you claim that they did not go far enough, I am sure you will find many who would say that they went too far.
      - pjmlp 1y ago
        I very much doubt it, when someone decides to make full of use of recent ISO C on a C library header file. I claim they aren't focused on what matters, we don't need C++isms into C, we already have C++, and C should have been done as language back in C89. Anyone that wanted more has always been able to use C++ instead, or Objective-C on Apple/NeXT land. What we need is for WG14 to finally take security regarding strings, arrays seriouslys, not yet another reboot of functions using (ptr, length) pairs.

uecker 1y ago

In my experience, templates usually cause a lot of bloat that slows things down. Sure, in microbenchmarks it always looks good to specialize everything at compile time, whether this is what you want in a larger project is a different question. And then, also a C compiler can specialize a sort routine for your types just fine. It just needs to be able too look into it, i.e. it does not work for qsort from the libc. I agree to your point that C++ comes with fast implementations of algorithms out-of-the-box. In C you need to assemble a toolbox yourself. But once you have done this, I see no downside.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]