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

The Time Needed to Write “Effective Modern C++”

scottmeyers.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 152 posts

Re: The Time Needed to Write “Effective Modern C++”

#41

Post by blt »

mikekchar wrote: post #8

Very interesting to reflect on the amount of time needed to write a technical book on a programming language. If I compare that to amount of time taken to write code (and forgive me for the horrible KLOC metric), I think one could easily average about 300 lines of good C++ code (including tests) per day on a new project -- probably more if you are working alone, but let's keep it conservative. So about 37.5 lines per…

300 lines per day sustained? that seems really high to me. what were you working on? didn't you ever spend days optimizing or refactoring with <= 0 net lines added?

Re: The Time Needed to Write “Effective Modern C++”

#42

Post by smikims »

Negitivefrags wrote: post #34
coliveira wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Constness when used on classes introduces a way to create objects that behave differently in different contexts. Are you calling a member function from a const or from a non-const pointer? Depending on that you could be running different code. In my opinion you should make your mind about what the class does: is it mutable? then don't use it with const. Unfortunately, you are still required to use const in many place…

That is an argument to avoid const overloading, not constness generally. I would say that constness is a massive boon so I use it on the vast majority of declarations. It reduces cognitive load by being able to assume that variables are not going to change.

I agree that const is overall a good thing; however, it is tricky even in what you might think are simple cases. Take this for example:

    include 
    
    void foo(const int& a, int& b)
    {
	    std::cout
Here the value of a changes in the middle of the function even though it's a const reference, because of aliasing. Here const doesn't mean the value won't change--only that you can't change it through that particular reference. Yes, const is useful, but if you don't know what it actually does it will bite you in the ass, just like most of C++.

Re: The Time Needed to Write “Effective Modern C++”

#43

Post by berns »

mpu wrote: post #5

Is this guy actually writing C++ programs in the wild? He often presents himself as an apostle in the C++ church, but, I am always surprised that he does not seem to apply his guidelines into any practical project of his. As a programmer, I'm suspicious when people have opinions and give advice but never showed me more than snippets of code. Like a master tailor that wouldn't sew. How come he gets that much recogniti…

He gave a talk at DConf 2014. He said "I'm gonna make a confesion which will make many of you instantly stop listening to me which is I don't develop software." Meyers is a teacher, a very good one. http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/47947981

Re: The Time Needed to Write “Effective Modern C++”

#44

Post by blt »

I write C++ for a living and I like it, but it bothers me that we need a book that's essentially a list of "you can easily fuck this up by accident, watch out!"

for now, it seems that C is insufficiently expressive and everything else is too slow. but the complexity of C++ is troubling.

Re: The Time Needed to Write “Effective Modern C++”

#46

Post by aric »

istvan__ wrote: post #33
aric wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

D is a better alternative for many people. Speaking of Scott Meyers, C++, and D, his talk at DConf 2014 was humorous and you'll get a better sense of him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48kP_Ssg2eY It depends on your actual goals. Personally, though I prefer Go for everything when possible, my favorite alternative to C++ is C++ . If you want a true alternative, Rust is probably a smarter investment of time compared…

Thanks this video is just too funny. I was aware of the quirkiness of C++ but this is very insightful. On the Go note, I like it but I think the target of Go is system programming with great concurrency support. More about Go here: http://yager.io/programming/go.html Rust seems to incorporate all of the academic research about programming languages and also moves towards memory safety and correctness, and that is a g…

Scott is hilarious. He's a bundle of insight. The slight jest about C++ being an alternative to itself sums it up: it can be a multidimensional beast. Quirky is a very kind way to describe smashing one's head on a keyboard repeatedly. That said, C++11 changed its game. It's so much easier to write in it without inducing bleeding eye syndrome.

The Go article has some fair points. Yet, most of the reasons the author discounts Go are reasons I prefer Go. Its minimalism is a virtue. I'm grateful that it ignores a lot of research overload. It's grounding. I see more and do more in it. Reading people's code and the standard library itself isn't painful. Go is versatile. Systems don't sum it up. In my view, it'll have a healthy stride in a lot of other areas outside of networking and the web, given time (e.g. desktop GUIs, mobile, games, game servers, etc.). In 10 years, we'll have exhausted all letters and be back on C.

Re: The Time Needed to Write “Effective Modern C++”

#48

Post by zerr »

mpu wrote: post #5

Is this guy actually writing C++ programs in the wild? He often presents himself as an apostle in the C++ church, but, I am always surprised that he does not seem to apply his guidelines into any practical project of his. As a programmer, I'm suspicious when people have opinions and give advice but never showed me more than snippets of code. Like a master tailor that wouldn't sew. How come he gets that much recogniti…

While Carmack obviously is a great programmer, the fact that C++ compiler eats his `C with classes` code doesn't make him the best C++ programmer out there :)

Re: The Time Needed to Write “Effective Modern C++”

#49

Post by seesomesense »

mpu wrote: post #5

Is this guy actually writing C++ programs in the wild? He often presents himself as an apostle in the C++ church, but, I am always surprised that he does not seem to apply his guidelines into any practical project of his. As a programmer, I'm suspicious when people have opinions and give advice but never showed me more than snippets of code. Like a master tailor that wouldn't sew. How come he gets that much recogniti…

Those who can't do, teach.

Those who cannot do or teach, write books.

( And use the fame derived from them to get consulting gigs. )

Re: The Time Needed to Write “Effective Modern C++”

#50

Post by angersock »

blt wrote: post #44

I write C++ for a living and I like it, but it bothers me that we need a book that's essentially a list of "you can easily fuck this up by accident, watch out!" for now, it seems that C is insufficiently expressive and everything else is too slow. but the complexity of C++ is troubling.

Everything else isn't too slow, though, especially if you hit any meaningful IO.
Post reply on HN