Is modern C++ becoming more prevalent?

Here's how I think things have evolved.

The first generation of C++ programmers were C programmers, who were in fact using C++ as C with classes. Plus, the STL wasn't in place yet, so that's what C++ essentially was.

When the STL came out, that advanced things, but most of the people writing books, putting together curricula, and teaching classes had learned C first, then that extra C++ stuff, so the second generation learned from that perspective. As another answer noted, if you're comfortable writing regular for loops, changing to use std::for_each doesn't buy you much except the warm fuzzy feeling that you're doing things the "modern" way.

Now, we have instructors and book writers who have been using the whole of C++, and getting their instructions from that perspective, such as Koenig & Moo's Accelerated C++ and Stroustrup's new textbook. So we don't learn char* then std::strings.

It's an interesting lesson in how long it takes for "legacy" methods to be replaced, especially when they have a track record of effectiveness.

Absolutely yes. To me if you're not programming C++ in this "Modern C++" style as you term, then there's no point using C++! You might as well just use C. "Modern C++" should be the only way C++ is ever programmed in my opinion, and I would expect that everyone who uses C++ and has programmed in this "Modern" fashion would agree with me. In fact, I am always completely shocked when I hear of a C++ programmer who is unaware of things such as an auto_ptr or a ptr_vector. As far as I'm concerned, those ideas are basic and fundamental to C++, and so I couldn't imagine it any other way.

In the days of Windows 3.1, C was the standard. When C++ hit the developer market and later became ANSI standard, it was the new hotness. It popularized the OOP acronym and some of the basic design patterns using polymorphism.

Now, with the greater acceptance of low-barrier-to-entry managed platforms, like C#/.NET, there's less of a reason to use C++. So much of the developer base will have a choice and let's be honest: C++ is a bear to learn for a novice. With C#, you can just run with it.

That leaves really only the platforms that NEED C++ and the die-hard C++ evangelists to continue practicing the art. This is the community that needs and wants all the layers of abstraction that is considered "Modern C++".

So yes, I believe "Modern C++", as you state it, is becoming more prevalent. Albeit, it's prevalent with a different audience than has used it in the past.

I am one of these guys who learned how to work with the STL and heard a lot about RAII and good C++ programming practices from day 1. Looks like some of the most recommended books for learning C++ today (like Accelerated C++ and the Effective C++ series) focus on using STL tools instead of rolling up your own stuff, and also give lots of "rules" for effective (or "modern") programming.

But talking with friends I also noted some companies still work with "C with Classes", not "Modern C++". Maybe the culture proposed by the authors and users of the "Modern C++" will prevail someday :)

I think you just had a bad experience starting off.

You need to get yourself Scott Meyers Effective C++ books. I started on C++ in anger in 1999, my team lead made me sit and read Effective C++ and More Effective C++ before I was allowed to check in ANY code.

Most of his advice is on the lines of "Don't use this feature, but if you must, keep this in mind"

If you follow his advice you'll write good or "Modern" C++.

He has a book on STL now too, but that I haven't read.

In my C++ jobs, I've found the modern features to be increasingly used, and more people asked me about them in phone screenings and interviews. As far as I can tell, they're catching on.

I learned C++ originally as something like C with Classes; although the language had advanced far beyond that, the books I read and people I worked with were firmly stuck on "old C++". RAII something people would think about, rather than automatically do, and I remember reading some of the early articles on the problems of exception safety.

As pointed out, there's new books out now. Many of the old ones are still relevant, but they increasingly seem to be full of explaining why obviously bad ideas are bad. (Similarly, it's hard for modern readers to understand how revolutionary Freud's ideas of an unconscious mind were, since it's now conventional wisdom.)

Stroustrup just came out with a textbook, Programming: Principles and Practice Using C++. I bought it because I haven't yet failed to learn good stuff from a book of Stroustrup's, but haven't gotten past the first few chapters. So far, all I can say is that I approve of the way he's starting out, and it's at least a good introduction to how C++ should be used.

I wouldn't say that std::vector qualifies as "modern" these days. It is really basic.

Generally my impression is that people have gained some experience with modern C++ style and sobered up a little. Just to take a simple example, STL for_each was interesting but in practice it does not add a terrible lot of value over a plain C loop. It is harder to debug and sometimes does not provide the best performance. Also the constructs for functional programming in current STL are generally very cumbersome, especially if you got experience from a real functional language like ML.

In my experience (Spanish University), unfortunately, the norm is to not to consider languages in itself. They use the easiest languages to teach programming (i.e. Java), because it is supposed to be easy for teachers and students, and then they use C for the OS classes and such.

C++ is introduced very slightly (at any rate at any course), just to provide a C with classes. They don't get into boost or even STL. I think keeping up with all the characteristics and way of thinking of C++ is costly for both teachers and students. How many of C++ programmers here know enough of all the Boost libraries to use them to give a better solution or to design it? One has to have an interest in keeping up with all the new libraries and idioms.

However, as I said, it seems that programming in general (and programming languages in particular) are not taken too seriously, as it seems to be a temporal assignment when they start a job, then forget how to program as they go up in the enterprise tree. Many enterprises here, and the University itself, have the feel that programming can be done by anybody.

If you follow this philosophy, then for most people I know, C++ will always be "C with classes".

Regards,

In my experience it vastly depends on the age of the software product/project. Most new projects that I am aware of do use modern C++ (RAII, STL, Boost). However, there are many C++ projects that are more than 10 years old, and you don't see modern C++ there.

Also, keep in mind that some of the most popular STL implementations were pretty much broken until maybe 5 years ago (MSVC < 7.0 and GNU < 3.00)

The best book for learning C++. "Accelerated C++" by Koenig & Moo, teaches what you describe as modern C++, so I guess most people these days are using it. For those of us that have been using C++ for quite a while (since the mid 80s in my case), modern C++ is a great relief from the tedious tasks of writing our own arrays, strings, hash tables (repeat ad nauseam).

The standardization of the language in the late 1990s was the first step, it allowed the compiler makers to focus on the "standard" set of features, also allowed the language to fix some of the rough edges, which appeared trough the standardization process.

This in turn allowed development of frameworks based on standard features of the language, and not on features provided by a particular compiler implementation. The Boost library is notably in this regard. Also this permitted that new development is based on previous work, thus making possible solutions to more complex problems.

A notable change here is how previously frameworks were based on the notion of base classes and derivated classes (a run time feature). But now most advanced features often are heavily based on "recursive" templates (a compile time feature).

The STL has its pros and cons but it survived the test of time, if you want something that works and is simple STL surely has something to help you start. There's no point in reinventing the wheel (unless for didactic reasons).

Computer hardware has also made great leaps from the 1990s, then the memory and CPU are no longer a constraint for the compiler. So most of the theoretical optimizations from books are now possible.

The next steps of the language is the support of multi-core programming, which is part of 0x standard effort.