121–130 of 149 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The Linux kernel is an impressively complicated, and robust piece of software and they get along just fine without exceptions. The amount of error-unwinding goto spaghetti, ERR_CAST/IS_ERR/PTR_ERR/... and all the bugs coming from it is not "just fine".
But how much of that would be solved by exceptions without convertng to a fully garbage-collected language?
Passing -ENOMEM 5 layers upwards stops being fun very quickly.
Contrary to many, I'm profoundly concerned about the culture around Chrome development, and the attitude here is indicative of that. There really is a belief by those that work on it, or have worked on it, that it's much better than it really is, when what actually happened was it was much better than the competition at launch, but now there isn't much between them at all. This notion that Chrome is decent on mobile…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven't worked with Chromium, but the main C++ code-base at Google is like this for the most part too (especially the core stuff). The C++ culture at Google is amazing, and proof that large-scale C++ can actually be really nice if you stay within best practices. It takes a lot of effort and experience from a lot of knowledgeable people to craft these practices, but thankfully Google publishes its C++ style guide (…
Avoiding exceptions is a worst practice. The guide even admits they're only doing it because they're so far beyond a critical mass of exception-unsafe code that they've lost hope of solving the problem. If the profession ever wants to produce anything reliable in C++, one of the first things that needs to happen is to start treating all unsafe legacy code like toxic waste, marking it clearly, handling it carefully in…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You build the libraries and link them into your libraries. If you maintain a cadence of updating your Chrome checkout every month, you will mostly be OK (though this can vary, of course).
Why not just stick with a stable version for a while? Updating every month sounds like a huge headache.
Google can do this (in general) because they have a single source tree (although IIRC Chromium isn't actually part of that). Point is: when you only care about your own code, as the Chrome devs do, third parties are in a really bad place to try and stay current.
Contrary to many, I'm profoundly concerned about the culture around Chrome development, and the attitude here is indicative of that. There really is a belief by those that work on it, or have worked on it, that it's much better than it really is, when what actually happened was it was much better than the competition at launch, but now there isn't much between them at all. This notion that Chrome is decent on mobile…
>In an ideal world most of what's mentioned should not be in the C++ layer, but in JS, except the hooks to provide that are simply never going to be exposed
Do you even know what you are talking about? the only thing that is reasonable to be written in javascript is webkit, specially the DOM.. and as far as i know, the chromium folks are already doing it.. (its called oilpan, i think)
There's no way the other parts could be working in javascript.. javascript is not that sort of language.. first you need a non-GC language: C, C++, Rust or ObjC (if you can stand it)
Than you need access to the native threads, and process, net, etc.. of each platform and provide native bindings for each platform.. and you need to do it fast(this probably means AOT compilation).. and again javascript is not that sort of language..
People need to stop being lazy and learn to use different tools for different needs..
I wont even comment on the cultist non-sense part.. but the source of chromium is there.. you can use it.. its open.. what could be bad about it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, it absolutely does, and I am very much not happy about it. I am the most anti-Google person I know. Unfortunately, it is impossible to live in a world of ideals, and so, I must compromise from time to time. As I mentioned elsewhere, I have another machine with 100% free software that I use for PGP when I need to keep secrets.
Where does "must" come from in this case? You could choose to practice browser fetish on anything.
Contrary to many, I'm profoundly concerned about the culture around Chrome development, and the attitude here is indicative of that. There really is a belief by those that work on it, or have worked on it, that it's much better than it really is, when what actually happened was it was much better than the competition at launch, but now there isn't much between them at all. This notion that Chrome is decent on mobile…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The C++ culture at Google is amazing Yet the C++ code powering downloads was pretty bad and poorly maintained, written, replaced with Go. http://talks.golang.org/2013/oscon-dl.slide#10 For sure there are great C++ programmers at Google, but across the company as a whole?
This is why I don't "get" go. If it was supposed to replace C++, why does it not compete with C++ directly? Why were they even using C++ for those projects in the first place?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We were looking for a great cross platform library for native (c++) apps. Isn't that what Qt is for, with the added bonus that it's what Qt is actually for and thus e.g. documented and supported?
Finally, somebody with some sense. If you want a fairly high level, cross platform C++ library, there is no reason NOT to use Qt.