OSDev.org

Hey guys,

Just found this when a friend linked it on Facebook. It looks like a pretty cool idea, and thought maybe some people might be interested in it.

http://www.cppgm.org/

- Monk

Hahaha, what a joke.

Have you ever wondered why there are so few C++ compilers out there, none of which are even yet fully compliant with C++11? It's because they are huge, ambitious projects that only big companies have the resources to embark on. You've got Intel, Microsoft, the FSF, IBM, HP, Embarcadero (ex-Borland), Apple/Google, and others still working on it. And they haven't started from scratch---they all had working C++03 implementations. And they offer a pitty certification?

If you've developed a C++ compiler on your own, you can get pretty much any job you like in the field. Putting their recommandation in your resume only downgrades it.

Quoted from their FAQ (You read that right?)

Isn't this a huge undertaking, usually done by an entire team of programmers?

The short answer is yes. This is a "Grandmaster" level programming course for world-class senior software engineers. It will be very difficult and mind-bending work.

However there are two key shortcuts we are taking compared to production toolchains:

• We are targeting a single specific system. Most toolchains are multi-target, and go through several intermediate forms before getting to native code. We are going more or less directly from the C++ syntax tree to code generation for Linux x86-64.
• More significantly, we are not doing an optimization pass. An enormous amount of the work in writing a production compiler is optimizing the generated code so that it uses minimal time and space. We require only that the compiler is correct according to the standard. The test suite resource limits are forgiving enough that you will pass provided you generate code in a simple, straightforward manner and use sensible data structures and algorithms.

- Monk

P.S. Please note I am in no way affiliated with these guys, so I don't know how well this will actually work out. I just think its a cool idea...

I will grant them that the optimization phase is the largest component of a modern compiler. However, even parsing (which these days isn't such a big deal anymore due to the availability of parser generators) C++ is kind of a big deal; if you do a Web search, you will see people complaining left and right. What's worse is that parsing isn't the end of the story; semantic analysis is even more involved. My prediction is that no one will earn their certificate that way.

tjmonk15 wrote:P.S. Please note I am in no way affiliated with these guys, so I don't know how well this will actually work out. I just think its a cool idea...

Don't worry, no one accused you of anything. And even if you were affiliated, I don't think mentioning a certification program to the community is bad.

Love4Boobies wrote:I will grant them that the optimization phase is the largest component of a modern compiler. However, even parsing (which these days isn't such a big deal anymore due to the availability of parser generators) C++ is kind of a big deal; if you do a Web search, you will see people complaining left and right. What's worse is that parsing isn't the end of the story; semantic analysis is even more involved. My prediction is that no one will earn their certificate that way.

Fair enough. Though I am intrigued just to see how they go about "teaching" it or building up the compiler

Hi,

I see that they bill themselves only as "formed by a software company". I'm intrigued to know what company that is. As far as I'm aware (not working in the profession) the very big software companies have their own certification programmes. The site seems fairly professionally written (decent quality of English etc...) and well thought out.

I have doubts as to whether anywhere would actually recognise this as a qualification - they don't seem to be linked to any educational establishment either. Interesting material and a possible souce of motivation for a hobby project if its done well, though.

Cheers,
Adam

Edit: one other concern is the lack of access to your owns source code afterwards. Supposing you wanted to add additional translation units etc... It seems the only way you could legally do that would be if they create a "part 2" for the course. Maybe that's where they'll charge.[/cynisism]

AJ wrote: I have doubts as to whether anywhere would actually recognise this as a qualification - they don't seem to be linked to any educational establishment either. Interesting material and a possible souce of motivation for a hobby project if its done well, though.

Anything that makes your resume/CV and you stand out is helpful. I've put "Written a bootloader in assembly" on mine before and it always ends up being a fun point of interest during the interview. Not always the initial one but always in the technical interview. This project sounds like it'd be one of those interesting things to add.

If I were to write a C++ compiler for my resume, I would target C++98 instead, since the specification is about half in size.

tjmonk15 wrote:http://www.cppgm.org/

I'd recommend coursera.org/compilers instead. Much smaller scope and better focus on important details.

I think you missed part of CPPMG site:

Prerequisites wrote:taken a typical undergraduate Compilers course

Griwes wrote:I think you missed part of CPPMG site:

Prerequisites wrote:taken a typical undergraduate Compilers course

That's a pretty huge task nevertheless. I'm definitely not ready to take this for example.

To design and implement a compiler that is not shameful to put on resume, it could take years and I think it's not justified - I'd rather spend the time on a game or file some provision patents (provision are cheap, and put some on resume really make it look fun), or an OS for fun.

dozniak wrote:

Griwes wrote:I think you missed part of CPPMG site:

Prerequisites wrote:taken a typical undergraduate Compilers course

That's a pretty huge task nevertheless. I'm definitely not ready to take this for example.

I don't say otherwise, but you said "take undergraduate Compilers course *instead*", while the whole point is that you've taken it *before*, not *instead*.

Griwes wrote:I don't say otherwise, but you said "take undergraduate Compilers course *instead*", while the whole point is that you've taken it *before*, not *instead*.

Yeah, my bad. What I meant, take compilers course instead of this one if you haven't taken the compilers course yet

I wrote a request about the course length and planned workload. They replied:

CPPGM Support wrote:The workload is different for everyone but for people that are "ready" for the course and meet the listed Prerequisites we hope for it to be about 10 hours/week over 12 months.

So it results in about 2 hours a day for C++ profi. Seems that this is really hard course.
Still didn't get the primary goal of this course. Is this just for certification that you have absolute knowledge in C++ or for training (and certificate just shows that you succeeded in this course)?