11–20 of 172 posts
cout I'm sorry, but as "succinct" as it is, this is basically an unreadable bullshit. Reminds me strongly of a macro abuse in C.
I recently rewrote one of my C++ projects(which uses C++11 features and Boost.asio) in Go. It took me half the time, less than 2/3 lines of code compared to the C++ version. This is expected. But most surprisingly, despite that I tried my best thinking about how to make it as efficient as possible in every detail when writing C++ version, and that I'm quite new to Go, the Go version still achieves nearly 100% higher throughput than C++ version.
Maybe my C++ skill sucks. But I guess I'll just let it suck.
That the language may have some Python-esque tendencies (given very particular language, compiler and library versions, and a depth of knowledge not required in the Python equivalent) doesn't seem that interesting. Especially when you consider that 9/10 C++ programmers you meet don't actually code in that style and don't intend to.
"you will notice that it is more or less as succinct as the Python code." ??? I hope that this person writes better python than this: const map > TagDataMap { {"title" , make_tuple( 3, 30, stripnulls)}, {"artist" , make_tuple( 33, 30, stripnulls)}, ... it will be succinct when the whole type can get reduced to "auto". Python would just do: TagDataMap = { 'title': (3, 30, stripnulls), 'artist': (33, 30, stripnulls), .…
You misunderstand the purpose of ord. The mp3 metadata uses one byte to encode an integer between 0 and 255, which represents genre. It is not a string.
Well, I liked C++11 a lot. But now I think I'll replace it with Go whenever possible. I don't really mind so much the verbose syntax. What matters is how difficult it is to write efficient code. I recently rewrote one of my C++ projects(which uses C++11 features and Boost.asio) in Go. It took me half the time, less than 2/3 lines of code compared to the C++ version. This is expected. But most surprisingly, despite th…
Well, I liked C++11 a lot. But now I think I'll replace it with Go whenever possible. I don't really mind so much the verbose syntax. What matters is how difficult it is to write efficient code. I recently rewrote one of my C++ projects(which uses C++11 features and Boost.asio) in Go. It took me half the time, less than 2/3 lines of code compared to the C++ version. This is expected. But most surprisingly, despite th…
cout I'm sorry, but as "succinct" as it is, this is basically an unreadable bullshit. Reminds me strongly of a macro abuse in C.
It is only unreadable bullshit the first time you read it. If you use ranges, filtered and transformed for these kinds of tasks, it looks idiomatic.
Great post, it's always fun to see the cutting edge of C++ revealed. It's such a strange land. :) To me, this post would have been 10X more interesting if there was some elementary benchmarking included. If it's about the same speed as the corresponding Python code, which I'd bet is easier to write for more programmers, then I don't quite see the point being as clearly proven. If it's 100 times faster (or whatever),…
I wrote this post. The program is I/O-bound, so the only speed improvement comes from not having to start up the Python interpreter. If the task was CPU bound, you would get a great performance boost (sometimes 100x over CPython), but that is well known. There can be other reasons than performance for writing in C++. Used well, the strong static type system can catch many bugs. I suspect (but I cannot prove) that it…