Humble programmer, this time for real

Sometimes even the most skilled programmer like me lose their humbleness and blame the compiler. Luckily for him (or her) reality is ready the put them back at their places. This is what happened to me today. It was afternoon and after some thick coding with containers and containers of containers I was rather tired, maybe in need of a break. I don’t believe in break so I went on and wrote the destructor.
Pretty simple stuff a for loop iterating through all the container elements and basically deleting them one by one.
So far so good, then I wrote the test case (I do believe in test cases) and I got a rather surprising behavior on the destruction of an empty container. My code was supposed to skip the destruction loop and get out of the destructor cleanly, instead what actually happened was that the loop code was executed once causing exception and exception dialog popping all around.
Puzzled I stared at the code without a clue. It was a for loop as thousands other I wrote.
So I composed a small source to test just that behavior (I do believe in small source test, too, they usually help you a lot understanding stuff). And I got it perfectly right. The code was doing what I expected. So I cut and pasted some types from the project into my test. Maybe after all it had something to do with the complex types I used.
But once more the small test code run perfectly.
I was quite astonished and tempted to blame the compiler. So I went for the assembly window just to have the confirmation that the code was actually different and that the project code compiled to execute the loop once.
My personal C++ GURU was away so I had to handle it all by myself. At this point I tried to do some more cut & paste to understand were the problem arise and… I got it… There was, right after the closing bracket of the for statement and before the opening curly bracket… there a SEMICOLON!
Feeling dumb would have been an giant leap upward respect to that I felt. I knew that very seldom the compiler is to blame, so despite of appearance I was the culprit. Also I should believe some more in breaks, just a few minutes to get from ‘fused’ back to ‘bright’. And … yes C++ (or C, in this case it is a common pitfall) is a loaded gun ready to shot into your feet by default… but, what the heck! A little warning from the compiler would have saved me quite a time.
In fact my personal programming style is to always use the curly brackets even when the block is empty. I found this to be more readable and less error prone. It would be nice to instruct the compiler to emit a warning when this rule is broken. If the programmer is so smart to do everything in the for parenthesis and doesn’t need to specify a loop body, then she could spend part of the saved time writing a pair of curly brackets.

Don’t fear, it’s only C++

One thing I’m sure about C++ is that it had a troubled history. It sprang to life in mid 80s as a C with classes, a language aimed to bring the then new object oriented paradigm to C programmers. The standardization was far ahead, but the language when arrived to the first programmers outside AT&T was quite stable: single and multiple inheritance, late binding, function and operator overload.
But quite stable isn’t as stable as stable, so the first addenda to the language arrived by the beginning of 90s: exceptions and templates.
The standardization arrived quite late (late 90s) in the history of C++ and rather than codifying the existing practice, as it had been the case for C, took the way of empowering the language. The committee added many features to the language, one for all the STL. The standardization of the C++ language had been an impressive result, if for anything else at least for being a result. With the heavy load of new features it would have been easy to get lost on the way killed by the committee overhead.
Today, by admission of the language creator himself, Bjarne Stroustrup, it is unlikely for a single programmer to have a perfect knowledge of the whole language (considered as both the core language and the library).
With this troubled history, compiler vendors had their hard time to keep up with improvement first and standard later. The standard presented for sure a hard challenge. Being compliant could be a too ambitious goal when you have actually to develop a product and put it on the shelves.
Incompatibilities, non-compliancies, misbehavior were only part of the problem that programmers had to deal with, the part was the increased level of complexity: whole new concepts in the template field, tons of components and functions in the library. Also from the development battlefields new concern arose. Exceptions which had considered an elegant way to deal with errors and anomalies turned out to be if not a false friend, at least a very difficult one. If not carefully planned and the code actually being written with exceptions in mind, the exception mechanism would yield no benefits and the problems caused by misuse are more or less the same you would have without using exceptions and ignoring anomalies.
Another pretty impressive result from the battlefield was the meta-programming. Templates were intended to describe a set of classes or functions that performed the same algorithm on different types. In order to do this some business have to be done at compile time. It was discovered, from a programmer, that this kind of business could be used to perform non-trivial computation at compile time. If generating a set of prime numbers at compile time could be not much interesting, the matter changes when the result of the generation is a parser or an optimal evaluation of complex expressions.
With this sort of history it is pretty natural that many programmers are scared by the new features of C++ (if not by the whole language itself). As any kind of fear, this too deserves to be analyzed and addressed. There no point in avoiding everything that hide some side effect, because this is the main mechanism behind abstraction – ignoring details of the lower levels. Instead the programmer should develop an approach that let her avoid pitfalls and undesired effects of the use and abuse of the language.
Also, nowadays most of the compilers are reasonably compliant with the standard. Even Microsoft Visual C++ is now a pretty good compiler by standard… standards. Therefore even from this point of view, programmers could stop worrying and start using the language to its full potential. And C++ has a huge potential being nearly the only language that allows the programmer to properly choose the right amount of abstraction to employ.
For sure C++ isn’t for the faint hearted, stealing someone words, C++ is like a gun loaded, ready to shot and aimed straight to your feet by default. I’m sure it’s what you want when there are grizzly around.

Train of mysteries

There are things the go beyond the reach of the human intellect and challenge the human wit. To reach the workplace I use a local train from a local private company. Now riding a train on long standing railway should be a pretty well defined business. By itself a train is quite a deterministic object. There are no traffic jams, commuters are, more or less, always the same, waiting for the carriages about in the same position along the track.
So why a train should be late on a daily basis? The only chance that comes to mind is the time table being wrong. But if the time table has just been changed then it couldn’t be the cause.
But the mysteries don’t stop here. For example, an empty train should be a lot more expensive to ride than a full one. At least for the incontestable fact that a paying commuter bring to the company more money than an empty seat. So the mystery is why everyday an empty train (the (in)famous) Malpensa Express) travels in front of thousands of depressed commuter eyes without letting them in?
The idea is that the Malpensa Express is for travellers going to and from the Malpensa airport. Nonetheless is an empty train that eats up railway time and space (and this is very scarce being a single track railway). On the contrary the commuters train is usually full, reaching its destination hardly with the space for a pin.
Another interesting mystery is how the delay statistics are computed. The mean delay which entitles commuters for a (little) refund is computed as the mean of the delays for the same railway line. Apart that the same commuter hardly spreads her rides uniformly on all the trains, but the damage that the company is causing to the society for the bad service is bound to the delay per person. I mean an empty train late is basically causing no problem, since no one is arriving late at the workplace. On the contrary a train carrying one thousands people late for 5 minutes is causing 5 thousands minutes of delay to the society considered as a whole.

Back from holidays

A body on holidays tends to stay in that state unless some external events force it to get back to work. That’s exactly what happened to me and my wife, that caused us to terminate our holidays on the Alpe di Siusi. The process involving the return home had been hard and extremely painful since it took 8 hours and half to drive through 340km.
But this minor drawback doesn’t take anything from the wonderful holidays we had. Have a look in the photoalbum at our photos we shot there.