Can someone explain this sentence to me? "In fact, WG14 makes WG21 look like tech’s Che Guevera."
Wrapping Up 2021. Leaving C++
161–170 of 251 posts
Re: Wrapping Up 2021. Leaving C++
#162It's great to hear that the author got a diagnosis for their condition (I hope that "condition" is not too unsuitable a word). I'm not very familiar with such things, but I can imagine that could be an important first step to understand and mitigate it. But it seems to me that they're still some way off from understanding their condition. They characterise it as having "extremely high standards" or not being able to…
Most good programmers have OCPD. I think the more serious problem with that person is the lack of awareness of their own narcissism.
Isn't this exactly like that "god complex vs imposter syndrome rollercoaster" meme? First you think you know nothing, then you feel like the best of knowing something, but then another thing happens that you know nothing of, etc.
I don't think this should be straight up attributed to narcissism. Just "doing your very, very best to get things perfect" is not a trait of a narcissist. Better yet, they usually say they are, but have 0.0 credibility of doing that, and will try to disprove any hint that would, basically, hurt their ego or image.
Re: Wrapping Up 2021. Leaving C++
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine realizing you wasted a decade of your life in the false hope of making a difference, but couldn’t because of a dysfunctional community dynamic… I can’t because I haven’t done that, and perhaps you can’t either. It may read this way to you but that’s the nature of blogs. They’re public diaries. Narcissism is often part of the medium itself.
The problem is she had specific ideas of what would make C++ better, and when 500 smart people are in the room there will be people who disagree. I've seen a lot of what I thought were good ideas get shot down when someone else brought out an objection I hadn't though of. Sometimes someone listens to the objection, spends a couple years of rework, and the process repeats a few times until the objections are satisfied…
That would be true, except large parts of the current C++ process are broken. The process advocates for papers, biasing towards people with personal quests and a lot of free time. I had many (informal) objections to while it was in the standards process, but since I didn't have time to write a paper, the library got waved through in its broken state.
Re: Wrapping Up 2021. Leaving C++
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you think Rust not supporting variadic generics is the right thing?
Because Rust is not C++?
Wouldn't variadic generics make working with tuples of any length easier[1], as const generics did for arrays? If that is the case, then I don't see how Rust not being C++ matters in this case.
Re: Wrapping Up 2021. Leaving C++
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't speak to their well-known-ness or influence, but they're definitely one of my favorite cppcon speakers[0] The community is lessened by their departure [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7THzO-D0ta4
Maybe Strousoup was showing disgust at the words written on the t-shirt?
What makes you suggest that?
Re: Wrapping Up 2021. Leaving C++
#166Can someone explain this sentence to me? "In fact, WG14 makes WG21 look like tech’s Che Guevera."
WG 14 is C, WG 21 is C++.
You are probably aware of the pace of evolution in the C language. Nothing happens, and if it's a horror show. The maximally take the easiest thing from C++, but usually the worst.
Re: Wrapping Up 2021. Leaving C++
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine for a moment what SO's signal:noise ratio would look like if people didn't set some sort of bar for quality?
Probably better, honestly, as people would be encouraged to give answers rather than close questions for being duplicates of things they aren't.
Pretty much every closed duplicate I've seen in over 10 years on the platform has been justified.
Re: Wrapping Up 2021. Leaving C++
#168It's great to hear that the author got a diagnosis for their condition (I hope that "condition" is not too unsuitable a word). I'm not very familiar with such things, but I can imagine that could be an important first step to understand and mitigate it. But it seems to me that they're still some way off from understanding their condition. They characterise it as having "extremely high standards" or not being able to…
"sorry, I guess I just have trouble tolerating how wrong you are"
this
I read the piece and it turned me from "I know nothing and have no opinion, other than I do not agree with the very premise of C++, and so walking in the door I'm predisposed to agree with anyone saying they're leaving C++"
to "I have a fairly strong suspicion that you probably earned the disregard you're complaining about, on both interpersonal and technical grounds."
Re: Wrapping Up 2021. Leaving C++
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Maybe worry less about languages Why should someone who contributes to the development of the language specs themselves "worry less" about languages?
> Why should someone who contributes to the development of the language specs themselves "worry less" about languages? Why not spend time solving different problems and then go back to languages? Why must one dedicate their life to a single field of expertise? The author was doing devops (with golang and kubernetes - the article is worth a read just for his take on kubernetes) work and said it was more rewarding than…
Who said their only interest was languages?
Re: Wrapping Up 2021. Leaving C++
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
Contributing to the spec, creating a very widely used set of CMake utilities, and being a widely enjoyed speaker not enough for you? With the condescending airquotes and demeaning comment, one might think you had done some research. Clearly you hadn't. A Google search can tell you all of this.
> "Contributing to the spec, creating a very widely used set of CMake utilities, and being a widely enjoyed speaker not enough for you?" No, this is clearly not enough to get shit accepted into the C++ standard. As evident by the fact that none of OP's ideas made it into the standard. Why should any of that matter? I'm sure OP is not alone here, by the way. I submit there must be thousands of amazing ideas proposed b…
> As evident by the fact that none of OP's ideas made it into the standard
Yet another person on here who didn't read the article.
> Multi-argument indexing made it into the C++23 standard, and so did std::byteswap. That’s my legacy I guess.