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

Fun with C++26 reflection: Keyword Arguments

pydong.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 147 posts

Re: Fun with C++26 reflection: Keyword Arguments

#31

Post by hyperhello »

anon-3988 wrote: post #5

I just don't understand why some people are so fascinated by this. Can you all admit that this is not at all practical? I swear C++ folks like it for the sake of it. No other engineer do this. Only antiques people or whatever. Can you imagine an engineer that is adamant on using his mystifying bespoke tool instead of just using a ruler. "But what if I have to measure it in the 4th dimension!?". I was expecting someth…

At this point, you should just switch to JavaScript. The desperation to have the simple ease of JavaScript without having to say you're going near "that terrible language" is twisting C++ into ridiculous loops. I'm serious. It's like a bizarre Victorian relic now.

Re: Fun with C++26 reflection: Keyword Arguments

#33

Post by ratmeadow »

anon-3988 wrote: post #5

I just don't understand why some people are so fascinated by this. Can you all admit that this is not at all practical? I swear C++ folks like it for the sake of it. No other engineer do this. Only antiques people or whatever. Can you imagine an engineer that is adamant on using his mystifying bespoke tool instead of just using a ruler. "But what if I have to measure it in the 4th dimension!?". I was expecting someth…

> Why can't you just do this at the language level like any sane person?

The reality is C++ is a ridiculously complex and legacy-ridden language, with a difficult goal to preserve backwards compatibility. I haven't read the history on the keyword args proposals but I'm guessing they were declined due to a deluge of silly edge case interactions with C++ semantics that became too hard to work around. Like how struct designated initialisers have to be in order of member declaration due to object lifetime rules or something like that.

I would recommend trying to not be outraged at the state of C++ these days. It's time to stop hoping that C++ gets the nice features we need in any sort of reasonable manner. The reality of the language is not compatible with much niceness.

Re: Fun with C++26 reflection: Keyword Arguments

#35

Post by drivebyhooting »

hyperhello wrote: post #31
anon-3988 wrote: post #5

I just don't understand why some people are so fascinated by this. Can you all admit that this is not at all practical? I swear C++ folks like it for the sake of it. No other engineer do this. Only antiques people or whatever. Can you imagine an engineer that is adamant on using his mystifying bespoke tool instead of just using a ruler. "But what if I have to measure it in the 4th dimension!?". I was expecting someth…

At this point, you should just switch to JavaScript. The desperation to have the simple ease of JavaScript without having to say you're going near "that terrible language" is twisting C++ into ridiculous loops. I'm serious. It's like a bizarre Victorian relic now.

Is JS simpler than Python? I don’t think so but willing to change my mind.

Re: Fun with C++26 reflection: Keyword Arguments

#36

Post by hyperhello »

drivebyhooting wrote: post #35
hyperhello wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this point, you should just switch to JavaScript. The desperation to have the simple ease of JavaScript without having to say you're going near "that terrible language" is twisting C++ into ridiculous loops. I'm serious. It's like a bizarre Victorian relic now.

Is JS simpler than Python? I don’t think so but willing to change my mind.

The syntax? Probably a little. It’s a typeless C. As for what you can use it for, it’s limited to browsers, practically, so not really comparable.

Re: Fun with C++26 reflection: Keyword Arguments

#37

Post by Gibbon1 »

NL807 wrote: post #28
anon-3988 wrote: post #5

I just don't understand why some people are so fascinated by this. Can you all admit that this is not at all practical? I swear C++ folks like it for the sake of it. No other engineer do this. Only antiques people or whatever. Can you imagine an engineer that is adamant on using his mystifying bespoke tool instead of just using a ruler. "But what if I have to measure it in the 4th dimension!?". I was expecting someth…

Honestly, all I ever want is to be enumerate a struct data member or an enum at compile time, and be able to get the name, type and value of each iterated member. That's it. That's all I want.

Would be happy with a enum that's a named key value.

    key_enum one_two_three 
    {
       FIRST = { .name = "first"},
       SECOND = { .name = "second"},
       THIRD = { .name = "third"},
       LAST = { .value = 255, .name = "last"},
    };

Re: Fun with C++26 reflection: Keyword Arguments

#38

Post by flakes »

hyperhello wrote: post #36
drivebyhooting wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is JS simpler than Python? I don’t think so but willing to change my mind.

The syntax? Probably a little. It’s a typeless C. As for what you can use it for, it’s limited to browsers, practically, so not really comparable.

> it’s limited to browsers, practically

That massively ignores node.js and all of the many popular backend frameworks built on it today. JS might not be everyone's cup of tea, but it is certainly not limited to browsers, practically.

Re: Fun with C++26 reflection: Keyword Arguments

#40

Post by BodkinsOdds »

RossBencina wrote: post #29
ranger_danger wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes a pointer to struct would be acceptable as well

In 1998 perhaps. It wouldn't be acceptable to today's C++ value-semantics crowd. Are you sure that you want to take the indirection penalty? or that the compiler will optimise it away?

C++ is already so reliant on optimizing `const&` parameters that I can't imagine why you wouldn't use them if you happen to be stuck with a shitty embedded toolchain (or MSVC) that can't be relied on to pass struct parameters efficiently.
Post reply on HN