I've been meaning to attend the ACCU Conference for some years and finally decided to pay my own way for a couple of days this year. It was an opportunity to hear world experts on C++ and other programming topics and to a smaller extent to meet and socialise with other professional programmers.

I attended the following sessions:

Keynote: Improving Collaboration in Open Source Projects, Mark Shuttleworth

This was a somewhat surprising choice of speaker and subject since I think most attendees work on proprietary software, but I think any sensible developer in the proprietary world will try to build on free libraries under non-copyleft licences, where appropriate. Mark talked about governance and leadership in "open source" projects (actually praising Debian for having a clear constitution) and about the need for good communication between projects, for example about release schedules. He seems to have accepted that Launchpad cannot be a single hub, and called for standard formats for, for example, exchanging information about related bugs between bug trackers. But it doesn't sound like he's ready to take the lead on that.

Choose your Poison: Exceptions or Error Codes, Andrei Alexandrescu

Andrei looked at the strengths and weaknesses of various error reporting mechanisms in C++ and introduced a technique for making error handling more flexible. Normally a function is designed either to indicate errors through its return value or to throw an exception on error. If a function returns an error indicator, it's easy for callers to ignore it. If it throws an exception on error, then a caller that provokes errors more often than the called function's author anticipated pays a high cost in processing time for those errors.

Andrei's solution involves a class template Likely<typename T> whose instances hold either a return value of type T or an exception. A function that can fail has a specialisation of this template as its return type. The caller can check for failure if it knows how to handle it, or it can ignore it - in which case the conversion to T or the destructor will throw the exception. This is clever but doesn't seem to be entirely satisfactory. The destructor which throws does first check that no exception is already being processed, avoiding collision of the two exceptions and consequent abrupt termination of the program, but this can result in errors being unexpectedly ignored.

Introduction to Component-Level Testing, John Lakos

A marathon 3-hour talk on designing and testing software, particularly C++ programs (the subject of his well-known book) as a set of well-defined components.

Lakos first defined these components as being "physical" i.e. sets of source files - normally a header file defining an interface, an implementation file, and a test driver file. They may also include metadata for the build system. He talked about the value of reusable components (as if this wasn't obvious!) and the risk of introducing circular dependencies - which essentially turn many components into one and reduce reusability - if we fail to keep track of dependencies. Software built out of components can be viewed as a hierarchy or stack defined by dependencies. In a large system, components with similar dependencies and dependents can be grouped together into packages or package groups to simplify a view of these dependencies.

He explained that the test driver's dependencies count just as much as the implementation's, because we cannot reasonably test a component until we have tested its dependencies. Test drivers should also be written to avoid depending on environmental settings and configuration, so far as possible.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, he spent a long time talking about how to construct test cases and test data. I might try to summarise this in a later entry if anyone's interested.

The Appliance of Science: Things in Computer Science that every practitioner should know, Andrei Alexandrescu

Andrei began by complaining that OpenOffice Impress was even worse than PowerPoint, but being able to use Linux (specifically Ubuntu) more than made up for the pain.

He briefly presented four key ideas that he believes programmers should understand and be ready to make use of:

  • Dynamic programming. The Wikipedia article summarises this as "a method of solving problems exhibiting the properties of overlapping subproblems and optimal substructure (described below) that takes much less time than naive methods". As a simple example, Andrei presented a Fibonacci number generator. But since no-one really needs Fibonacci numbers, he also showed its application to calculation of the Levenshtein distance between words which is important in spell-checking and fuzzy string matching. A naive approach to either of these problems is so inefficient as to be useless.
  • Garbage collection and its connection to type-safety. Any object model can only provide 2 of the following 3 features without losing type-safety: mutable objects, aliasing (multiple pointers/references to the same objects), and explicit reuse of memory (via free, delete or similar). C and C++ have all three of these. Garbage collection eliminates the need for the third. However it does require more virtual memory and/or more processing time (there is a trade-off between these). (He quoted numbers from Hertz and Berger, Quantifying the Performance of Garbage Collection vs. Explicit Memory Management, 2005. However, these numbers show the cost of GC in Java, specifically Jikes, not as an addition to C or C++.)
  • Machine learning. Sometimes we don't know how to solve a problem, but we can have the program gather feedback that will allow it to learn how to do it better. This depends on the "smoothness assumption": small changes in inputs have a small effect on the result, rather than making sudden changes. Examples: image recognition, deciding whether changes to web page layout are helpful, disambiguating search terms.
  • Transactional memory is the most promising approach to achieving scalability across massively parallel systems. Most hardware performance improvements over the next 10 years will come from greater parallelism, not higher clock speeds.

Writing for ACCU (BoF)

I think I've been convinced to write an article about standardisation of multithreading in C++.

C++ Threads, Lawrence Crowl

Crowl gave an overview (similar to this) of the extensive work that's been done on standardisation of multithreading in the C++ language and library. This is one of the most important features in C++0x due to the increased parallelism mentioned above. The current semantics of multithreaded programs are not standardised, resulting in subtle but potentially serious differences between current C++ implementations that support multiple threads, and in the need for assembly-language code in programs that use lockless synchronisation. Much of this is also relevant to C and is being considered by the C standard committee.

C++0x Initialisation: Lists and a Uniform Syntax, Bjarne Stroustrup

Stroustrup recapped the 4 forms of syntax for initialising objects in C++, some inherited from C and some necessarily invented for C++, none of which are entirely generic. He noted the lack of a simple syntax to initialise the elements of containers, which violates the general principle that class types should have the same status as built-in types in C++. He then introduced a new initialiser syntax that he and others have defined for C++0x, which is a brace-enclosed comma-separated list of values, similar to that used for arrays and C-style structures (aggregates). Container types can define a constructor with a parameter of type const std::initializer_list<T> & and when constructed with this new form of initialiser they will receive this wrapper for a constant array of element values. For types that do not, the values in the list are treated as arguments to some other constructor, if one matches. Otherwise, for compatibility, this may be treated as aggregate initialisation.

C++ Standard Library report, Alisdair Meredith

There was far too much information here for me to even begin to summarise. Suffice to say there are lots of good things coming bu the library committee will have its work cut out to get them all properly specified in time for the Committe Draft coming late this year.

I also met old friends and new, put faces to names from newsgroups and books, and got too little sleep.