11–20 of 23 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is what fifteen years of standards work on a five-letter keyword ['volatile'] looks like. How many letters are in the word 'volatile' ?
Woof. Didn't even bother to proofread the AI slop. Wow. I think we need a "Flag AI Slop" button.
> Every entry below points at a real paper that the working group adopted. None of these are arguments. They are admissions in writing. I smell AI. If you don't write it, I don't read it.
https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/1tja9zr/c_profiles_a_c...
I left C++ almost 10 years ago but I still remember how surprised and frustrated I was when auto_ptr was deprecated and then removed from the C++ standard as we had built our dependency injection framework and progress primitive on it.
Also, fun fact: Rust cannot remove anything from std once stabilised, presumably forever. Take this with a slight grain of salt, I haven't vetted this thought myself, but it's what I hear from Rust project people and I've just been in the project all-hands for three days.
Rust does partially have an easier time since it eg. does not guarantee the ABI of various std types like Vec (although the size and alignment are probably guaranteed at this point), and with 1&mut XOR N& providing local reasoning and isolation you get to change internal details easier.
I left C++ almost 10 years ago but I still remember how surprised and frustrated I was when auto_ptr was deprecated and then removed from the C++ standard as we had built our dependency injection framework and progress primitive on it.
Wasn't unique_ptr added as a migration path away from auto_ptr to provide similar functionality more safely? I've never used them but was just reading the history.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wasn't unique_ptr added as a migration path away from auto_ptr to provide similar functionality more safely? I've never used them but was just reading the history.
Sure, but auto_ptr is different in that copying transfers ownership, while unique_ptr prohibits copying.
I'm just curious about this for historical interest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Better get used to it, the art of writing without AI assistance is dead. You will occasionally find some of it like a truffle in the woods, but that was it. And even if the next generation will attempt stringing a few sentences together by hand it will sound like AI, because they grew up spending more time talking to AI than anyone else.
If I want to read a LLM's "opinion" on some subject I just prompt it myself. Inserting humans as intermediaries that pretend they wrote something is dishonest at best. Future generations will hopefully see through that and stop sign generated texts with fake human names.
> Every entry below points at a real paper that the working group adopted. None of these are arguments. They are admissions in writing. I smell AI. If you don't write it, I don't read it.