CppCoreGuidelines VS Taskflow

You need to talk to Bjarne and Herb...

"C++ Core Guidelines" - https://isocpp.github.io/CppCoreGuidelines/CppCoreGuidelines

In addition to the other comments -

TypeScript deliberately takes a "good enough" approach to improving JavaScript, instead of designing an ideal but incompatible approach. For example, its handling of [function parameter bivariance](https://www.typescriptlang.org/docs/handbook/type-compatibil...) is unsound but works much better with the existing JavaScript ecosystem. By contrast, a more academic functional programming language would guarantee a sound type system but would be a huge shift from JavaScript.

By analogy, Herb Sutter is arguing that something like the [C++ Core Guidelines](https://isocpp.github.io/CppCoreGuidelines/CppCoreGuidelines), with tooling help in this new Cpp2 syntax, can bring real improvements to safety. Something like Rust's borrow checker would bring much stricter guarantees, backed by academic research and careful design, but would be incompatible and a huge adjustment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2olsGf6JIkU

Take a look at Effective Modern c++ by Scott Meyers and the ISO c++ core guidelines. These resources are great for learning how to write better, more modern C++. I don't think it would be hard to grasp if you're already familiar with the language, just make sure to actually write some code which makes use of this stuff, otherwise it's easy to forget.

Look to the C++ Core Guidelines. It's not perfect, it has some flaws, including some sabotaging advice apparently adopted for political reasons. But at least it has some C++ authorities (Bjarne and Herb) as authors.

For parallel programming nowadays, personally I reach for C++ Taskflow when I really care about performance, or a mix of core.async and running multiple load balanced instances when I’m doing more traditional web backend stuff in Clojure.

Also, you can take a look to good libraries. The problem is that very often libraries are heavily templated, so It could be hard. For example, I like the style of the Taskflow library, I think is very clear, is relatively small, while makes use of more advanced techniques: https://github.com/taskflow/taskflow

Cool. Thanks! How does it compare to taskflow?

I've not seen yet, but it's been a bit since I looked last, any evidence of being able to build a computation graph and "save" it to re-run on new inputs. Something like https://github.com/taskflow/taskflow

It seems you're describing something a generic parallel task framework. Check taskflow for a production ready example https://github.com/taskflow/taskflow/blob/master/

- https://github.com/taskflow/taskflow (I recommend to learn it first since its API and documentation are excellent)

If you want some sort of "job" system, where you submit items to a some sort of queue to be processed in parallel, try searching for a thread pool - there isn't one in the standard library, but there's about a million implementations online. There are more complicated versions of that idea, that describe computation as a directed acyclic graph, such as taskflow.

The tooling decisions affect engine design though. For example if you want to have visual representation of job graph as it happened in specific frame of interest you need to pass the information around about job relationships and output it to a tool of choice. For example see https://github.com/taskflow/taskflow

I am aware of DAGs of task based threading library like Taskflow and HPX however the benefit they have is not obvious to me, as the following sequential section depends on the parallel part being completed fully. If you want to suggest elaboration on the benefits of this approach would be welcome.