Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wrapping Up 2021. Leaving C++

izzys.casa

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 251 posts

Re: Wrapping Up 2021. Leaving C++

#171

Post by dragonwriter »

mgaunard wrote: post #153
quietbritishjim wrote: post #36

It'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.

> Most good programmers have OCPD.

No, they don't. Attention to detail isn't OCPD.

Re: Wrapping Up 2021. Leaving C++

#172

Post by af78 »

chrsig wrote: post #98
JediPig wrote: post #37

Warning Vulgar ahead When I left C++, I felt like, I finally decided to quit rubbing one off with diamond sand paper.

This is the correct feeling. I write some c++, as well as some amount of code in other languages. I wouldn't consider myself part of the cpp community. c++ is hands down the most frustrating to deal with, and leaves me asking why I'm doing it to myself. The answer is, of course, that there are some things that're really only possible in c and c++...and however much I'd typically prefer to just do something in c, c++…

> I don't know why they couldn't have chosen something like `std::hash_map`

According to Herb Sutter the name `hash_map` (or `hashmap`) had already been taken by some C++ standard library implementation that shipped a class with this name in the std namespace: http://www.gotw.ca/publications/mill20.htm

Re: Wrapping Up 2021. Leaving C++

#173

Post by flohofwoe »

rurban wrote: post #166
ralphc wrote: post #161

Can 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.

On the other hand, the advantage of the glacial pace of change in the C standard is that the language hasn't been ruined yet. One of the most important tasks of the committee should be to say "no", even if that's not a popular thing to do. The right place for experiments in the C ecosystem is outside the standard, in libraries and language extensions.

Re: Wrapping Up 2021. Leaving C++

#174

Post by mwattsun »

mwattsun wrote: post #68

Since the author is open up front about their OCD issues, this talk immediately came to mind. It's a bit of an elaborate tongue-in-cheek joke, but I found it personally helpful for thinking about why a choose a language. Pervert in this context does not mean sexual deviancy. In the Lacanian sense, a pervert is a person who enjoys being a vessel of the rules. The Pervert's Guide to Computer Programming Languages - SXS…

I re-watched it since I am once again thinking about programming languages

17:15 "Slavoj Zizek likes to say that obsessional activity is doing something in order to do nothing" which to me sounds like pursuing a goal without ever wanting to achieve it, liking the pursuit more.

41:10 C++ is an obsessive language

So by this measure, Izzy Muerte developed a effective strategy for themselves, since they are a self-described obsessive working in an obsessive language and says they wasted 10 years of their life on C++ while accomplishing very little. So, success?

I laughed at this point at 34:55 "Closure is what I call the ultimate perversion language" because Rich Hickey comes across to me as a subversive disciplinarian (no offense intended)

Re: Wrapping Up 2021. Leaving C++

#176

Post by tialaramex »

nyanpasu64 wrote: post #142
zozbot234 wrote: post #135

> A lack of default arguments, a lack of basic arity overloading, a lack of variadic generics, all make me not want to write Rust. I'm not sure how serious this is, TBH? I mean, Rust does have macro syntax that supports all of these things (as seen e.g. in println!() and format!() ), and there are pretty solid engineering reasons to avoid those features within the basic workings of the language. I'm pretty sure most…

In my experience, Rust's multiple named functions is usually (not always) more clear than multiple function overloads, and practically always better than constructor overloads (you'll never convince me that std::vector's constructors are sane). However (IIRC) I wish it was possible in Rust to abstract over arity, in the case of function forwarding and tuple overloading.

I'd certainly like to be able to write std::cmp::max(a, b, c, d) and find the maximum of the four parameters.

But even when I most want that, I certainly don't want it enough to use C++

Re: Wrapping Up 2021. Leaving C++

#177

Post by chrsig »

af78 wrote: post #172
chrsig wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the correct feeling. I write some c++, as well as some amount of code in other languages. I wouldn't consider myself part of the cpp community. c++ is hands down the most frustrating to deal with, and leaves me asking why I'm doing it to myself. The answer is, of course, that there are some things that're really only possible in c and c++...and however much I'd typically prefer to just do something in c, c++…

> I don't know why they couldn't have chosen something like `std::hash_map` According to Herb Sutter the name `hash_map` (or `hashmap`) had already been taken by some C++ standard library implementation that shipped a class with this name in the std namespace: http://www.gotw.ca/publications/mill20.htm

This is sort of a great example of them shooting themselves in the foot...They can't name something right because implementations are already using the name...

if only the language had a way of putting names in some different area where they wont conflict with each other...

they could have done something like create a new namespace: std::maps, and then have std::maps::tree_map, std::maps::hash_map, or something to that effect, and use std::maps::tree_map as the implementation for std::map for backwards compatibility.

instead they chose to name something by what it isn't.

Re: Wrapping Up 2021. Leaving C++

#179

Post by IshKebab »

magicalist wrote: post #138
naxcl wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do not need a code of conduct for complaining about a sexist remark inside a corporation. CoCs ruin projects, create a stifled atmosphere of hate and distrust and it is always the wrong people who obtain power. Persons who are vocally against CoCs can very well be on your side regarding sexist remarks. Personal attacks are difficult to quantify. Often they are a last resort for shutting up someone who thinks they…

Eh. Call it "guidelines" and people write dang fanmail. Call it a "code of conduct" and some people lose their minds.

Yeah because the title is a fairly strong signal for the sort of content and enforcement it's going to get.

Re: Wrapping Up 2021. Leaving C++

#180

Post by mgaunard »

dragonwriter wrote: post #171
mgaunard wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most good programmers have OCPD. I think the more serious problem with that person is the lack of awareness of their own narcissism.

> Most good programmers have OCPD. No, they don't. Attention to detail isn't OCPD.

The two are highly correlated.
Post reply on HN