<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>C&#43;&#43; on Pi Stack</title>
    <link>https://www.pistack.xyz/tags/c&#43;&#43;/</link>
    <description>Recent content in C&#43;&#43; on Pi Stack</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://www.pistack.xyz/tags/c++/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Self-Hosted Lock-Free Data Structure Libraries: concurrentqueue vs ReaderWriterQueue vs Boost.Lockfree (2026)</title>
      <link>https://www.pistack.xyz/posts/2026-06-20-lock-free-data-structure-libraries-concurrentqueue-readerwriterqueue-boost/</link>
      <pubDate>Sat, 20 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://www.pistack.xyz/posts/2026-06-20-lock-free-data-structure-libraries-concurrentqueue-readerwriterqueue-boost/</guid>
      <description>&lt;h2 id=&#34;introduction&#34;&gt;Introduction&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When building self-hosted services that need to process millions of events per second, traditional locking primitives like &lt;code&gt;std::mutex&lt;/code&gt; become the bottleneck. A single contended mutex can reduce throughput by 80-90% compared to a well-designed lock-free alternative. For C++ developers building trading engines, game servers, network proxies, and real-time data processors, lock-free data structures are not an optimization — they&amp;rsquo;re a requirement.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Self-Hosted String Formatting Libraries: fmtlib vs ICU vs Abseil Strings vs boost::format (2026)</title>
      <link>https://www.pistack.xyz/posts/2026-06-20-self-hosted-string-formatting-libraries-fmtlib-icu-abseil-boost-format/</link>
      <pubDate>Sat, 20 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://www.pistack.xyz/posts/2026-06-20-self-hosted-string-formatting-libraries-fmtlib-icu-abseil-boost-format/</guid>
      <description>&lt;h2 id=&#34;introduction&#34;&gt;Introduction&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;String formatting might seem mundane, but in large-scale self-hosted services it directly impacts CPU utilization, memory allocation patterns, and localization capabilities. A logging pipeline processing 500,000 lines per second spends 15-30% of its CPU time on string formatting. An API gateway that constructs JSON error messages from templates allocates millions of temporary strings per hour. Choosing the right formatting library can reduce your service&amp;rsquo;s CPU usage by 40% compared to naive &lt;code&gt;sprintf&lt;/code&gt; or &lt;code&gt;std::stringstream&lt;/code&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Self-Hosted XML Parsing Libraries: lxml vs pugixml vs Xerces-C&#43;&#43; vs rapidxml (2026)</title>
      <link>https://www.pistack.xyz/posts/2026-06-20-self-hosted-xml-parsing-libraries-lxml-pugixml-xerces-rapidxml/</link>
      <pubDate>Sat, 20 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://www.pistack.xyz/posts/2026-06-20-self-hosted-xml-parsing-libraries-lxml-pugixml-xerces-rapidxml/</guid>
      <description>&lt;h2 id=&#34;introduction&#34;&gt;Introduction&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Despite JSON&amp;rsquo;s dominance in modern APIs, XML remains the backbone of countless enterprise systems, configuration formats, document standards, and legacy integrations. SOAP web services, SAML authentication, RSS/Atom feeds, SVG graphics, XHTML documents, and Android layout files all rely on XML parsing. For self-hosted services that ingest or transform XML data — whether you&amp;rsquo;re building a document conversion pipeline, an RSS aggregator, or a SOAP gateway — your choice of XML parsing library directly impacts throughput, memory usage, and correctness.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
