Such a missed opportunity to call it C
[deleted]
Orthodox C++ (2016)
21–30 of 238 posts
Re: Orthodox C++ (2016)
#22Holly bananas, that Boost Design Rationale post is, what's the word I'm looking for, intense.
Re: Orthodox C++ (2016)
#23If you're in a market that requires using C++, many of these decisions are made for you by the platform above you, and you're screwed. Turn on RTTI, build a fort to deflect the random exceptions they'll throw at you, and may the gods allow you to recoup your R&D before some well-intentioned yokel in some media or game vertical changes everything and requires you to change everything. On the other hand, if you control…
> build a fort to deflect the random exceptions they'll throw at you
Sounds like you hate exceptions, right? In which case why do you handle them at all? Just leave them all unhandled and suddenly every exception is a crash. Which is really no different from someone choosing to terminate. Which you have to worry about even without exceptions.
> if you have a C++ code base yet somehow have enough time and energy to write opinionated blog posts, it's really hard to imagine why you think you'd have a better take on this than Google.
"Given that Google's existing code is not exception-tolerant [...] Our advice against using exceptions is not predicated on philosophical or moral grounds, but practical ones. [...] Things would probably be different if we had to do it all over again from scratch."
Re: Orthodox C++ (2016)
#24You can take for (auto const & ess : esses) { ... } from my cold dead hands. Also, you can fight me if you want to take dynamic_cast (base_ptr) and force me to implement my own typing system every time I need to upcast. Basically, stick with C and leave C++ programmers alone. I haven't seen a less useful article about C++ in a long time, and as an HN reader, that's really saying something.
One thing I've noticed about a lot of these "strict C" developers is that quite often they actually refuse to learn C++. One of the most common complaints of C developers regarding C++ is "it does things behind the scenes/performs magic", often with regards to operator overloading. When they refuse to actually look at the implementation (y'know you can check if an operator has been overloaded) AND they refuse to ackn…
If we accept the maximum that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", then c++ is indeed magic. It's so advanced that one of the worlds foremost experts in the language(herb sutter) has determined that the language is too complex and we need a whole new language(confront) which is simpler and can be converted to c++.
Re: Orthodox C++ (2016)
#25You can take for (auto const & ess : esses) { ... } from my cold dead hands. Also, you can fight me if you want to take dynamic_cast (base_ptr) and force me to implement my own typing system every time I need to upcast. Basically, stick with C and leave C++ programmers alone. I haven't seen a less useful article about C++ in a long time, and as an HN reader, that's really saying something.
One thing I've noticed about a lot of these "strict C" developers is that quite often they actually refuse to learn C++. One of the most common complaints of C developers regarding C++ is "it does things behind the scenes/performs magic", often with regards to operator overloading. When they refuse to actually look at the implementation (y'know you can check if an operator has been overloaded) AND they refuse to ackn…
> y'know you can check if an operator has been overloaded
And there lies the problem with C++: to be sure, you have to check. C++ code can't be taken at face value -- the most innocuous-looking code could be a ticking bomb.
Re: Orthodox C++ (2016)
#26Sometimes I actually want objects that are transparent, fully public, and 'struct' is perfect for that. But if I then go and put methods into those structs, does that make me unorthodox?
Re: Orthodox C++ (2016)
#27Sometimes I actually want objects that are transparent, fully public, and 'struct' is perfect for that. But if I then go and put methods into those structs, does that make me unorthodox?
[flagged]
Re: Orthodox C++ (2016)
#28Such a missed opportunity to call it C
Was thinking "Hesitance C" could work
Re: Orthodox C++ (2016)
#29You can take for (auto const & ess : esses) { ... } from my cold dead hands. Also, you can fight me if you want to take dynamic_cast (base_ptr) and force me to implement my own typing system every time I need to upcast. Basically, stick with C and leave C++ programmers alone. I haven't seen a less useful article about C++ in a long time, and as an HN reader, that's really saying something.
LLVM uses a hand-rolled version of RTTI for the best performance (the parent constructor accepts its runtime type as an enum), and it seemed that the maintenance costs for it aren't that high. (See https://llvm.org/docs/HowToSetUpLLVMStyleRTTI.html)
Or if you're even lazier, you can easily make a more automatic RTTI system with some templates / macros that works much faster than dynamic_cast! (See https://github.com/royvandam/rtti)
Re: Orthodox C++ (2016)
#30The criticisms of STL and allocation are fair, though move constructors improved the shallow vs deep copy problem on resize.
Smart pointers are good. People were doing them outside the standard in the late 90s.
Lambdas are a good feature.