are these developments making things easier for the developer?
-
A question in the C++ forum today led me to C++ conformance improvements in Visual Studio 2019 | Microsoft Docs[^]. It seems to me that C++ is getting more and more complex and only a select few (some of whom are regulars here) will understand and be able to use these features. So I have to wonder who benefits from them, apart from the compiler writers who will definitely keep their jobs.
-
A question in the C++ forum today led me to C++ conformance improvements in Visual Studio 2019 | Microsoft Docs[^]. It seems to me that C++ is getting more and more complex and only a select few (some of whom are regulars here) will understand and be able to use these features. So I have to wonder who benefits from them, apart from the compiler writers who will definitely keep their jobs.
There are several C++20 and beyond features I would like to use in my code, like built in support for coroutines, but my current toolchain I develop with primarily doesn't support them fully.
Real programmers use butterflies
-
A question in the C++ forum today led me to C++ conformance improvements in Visual Studio 2019 | Microsoft Docs[^]. It seems to me that C++ is getting more and more complex and only a select few (some of whom are regulars here) will understand and be able to use these features. So I have to wonder who benefits from them, apart from the compiler writers who will definitely keep their jobs.
I'm with you. There isn't much beyond C++11 that I've found use for, at least so far. C++17 added , and C++20 added useful functions to
atomic_flag. There's still nothing for sockets, but there's no end of pedantic crap. Many systems will have platform-specific targets for things that have since been standardized. They won't bother to move to a version of C++ that supports them, because it would likely entail some rework.Robust Services Core | Software Techniques for Lemmings | Articles
The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing. -
A question in the C++ forum today led me to C++ conformance improvements in Visual Studio 2019 | Microsoft Docs[^]. It seems to me that C++ is getting more and more complex and only a select few (some of whom are regulars here) will understand and be able to use these features. So I have to wonder who benefits from them, apart from the compiler writers who will definitely keep their jobs.
Same thing is happening with C#. What was once the one of the cleanest languages is accruing debris.
cheers Chris Maunder
-
A question in the C++ forum today led me to C++ conformance improvements in Visual Studio 2019 | Microsoft Docs[^]. It seems to me that C++ is getting more and more complex and only a select few (some of whom are regulars here) will understand and be able to use these features. So I have to wonder who benefits from them, apart from the compiler writers who will definitely keep their jobs.
We need "the next big thing".
-
We need "the next big thing".
"C" - oh, wait, the next BIG THING:
C
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
A question in the C++ forum today led me to C++ conformance improvements in Visual Studio 2019 | Microsoft Docs[^]. It seems to me that C++ is getting more and more complex and only a select few (some of whom are regulars here) will understand and be able to use these features. So I have to wonder who benefits from them, apart from the compiler writers who will definitely keep their jobs.
They are probably applicable to less than 5% of developers? But you still have to search for things like JPEG and PNG encoders and decoders, which will affect far more than that 5%. This perplexes me, even though I heard their reasons for it long ago... C# kicks its butt because of items like that. Fortunately, you don't have to use the new constructs.
The Science of King David's Court | Object Oriented Programming with C++
-
Same thing is happening with C#. What was once the one of the cleanest languages is accruing debris.
cheers Chris Maunder
-
"C" - oh, wait, the next BIG THING:
C
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
Yes, it will keep on trucking for a long time. I have seen way too many attempts at using C++ for embedded applications that only use a subset of what C++ can do. And when you objectively ( pun indented ) it just makes you wonder what the point was of using C++ instead of C. Managers of any kind are a very bad idea to begin with.
-
Same thing is happening with C#. What was once the one of the cleanest languages is accruing debris.
cheers Chris Maunder
this. I don't know much C# and getting into an existing C# project is hell difficult to understand.
I'd rather be phishing!
-
A question in the C++ forum today led me to C++ conformance improvements in Visual Studio 2019 | Microsoft Docs[^]. It seems to me that C++ is getting more and more complex and only a select few (some of whom are regulars here) will understand and be able to use these features. So I have to wonder who benefits from them, apart from the compiler writers who will definitely keep their jobs.
Personally, I find a lot of new things being introduced to be counter-productive so I don't bother using them and I generally avoid code that does. That's because it defeats the purpose as far as I'm concerned. Herb keeps saying they are making the language more concise but I really couldn't care less about that because I see no advantages to that. If I have to stop and think about what some new construct does that is not helpful. I'll take the old, verbose ways that are simple and easy to understand. Of newer things, I have found only one from C++17 that I use frequently: inline static initializers. That's one of the most useful things I have found in quite a while. This may be an "old dog-new tricks" thing with me but I am not asking for any new tricks because the old ones are working pretty well as far as I'm concerned.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
-
Personally, I find a lot of new things being introduced to be counter-productive so I don't bother using them and I generally avoid code that does. That's because it defeats the purpose as far as I'm concerned. Herb keeps saying they are making the language more concise but I really couldn't care less about that because I see no advantages to that. If I have to stop and think about what some new construct does that is not helpful. I'll take the old, verbose ways that are simple and easy to understand. Of newer things, I have found only one from C++17 that I use frequently: inline static initializers. That's one of the most useful things I have found in quite a while. This may be an "old dog-new tricks" thing with me but I am not asking for any new tricks because the old ones are working pretty well as far as I'm concerned.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
Rick York wrote:
If I have to stop and think about what some new construct does that is not helpful. I'll take the old, verbose ways that are simple and easy to understand.
Thank god that you and @GregUtas are saying that... I now feel less dumb :-D :-D :rolleyes:
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
Same thing is happening with C#. What was once the one of the cleanest languages is accruing debris.
cheers Chris Maunder
One of the "improvements" I find really complicated is the range operator.
string name;
name = "My name is Sander Rossel".Substring(11);
name = "My name is Sander Rossel"[11..];Now tell me, which line of code better conveys my purpose? :~ Pattern matching is nice, but should be rarely needed in proper OOP.
Exception ex = new Exception();
switch (ex)
{
case InvalidCastException:
break;
case InvalidOperationException:
break;
case NullReferenceException:
break;
default:
break;
}// The alternative is, of course, an if-else statement.
var exType = ex.GetType();
if (exType == typeof(InvalidCastException))
{ }
else if (exType == typeof(InvalidOperationException))
{ }
else
{ }There's probably an advantage to the pattern matching, but it doesn't do much for readability. I love named tuples though.
public (string firstName, string lastName) GetNameParts(string name) { }
// Usage...
(var firstName, var lastName) = GetNameParts("Sander Rossel");
// Or...
var tuple = GetNameParts("Sander Rossel");
Console.WriteLine(tuple.firstName);And of course string interpolation, which greatly improves readability and decreases change of bugs.
Console.WriteLine($"Hi {firstName} {lastName}, welcome to {appName}!");
// vs.
Console.WriteLine(string.Format("Hi {0} {1}, welcome to {2}!", firstName, lastName, appName);If I could keep only one language improvement from about the last ten years it would be string interpolation!
Best, Sander Azure DevOps Succinctly (free eBook) Azure Serverless Succinctly (free eBook) Migrating Apps to the Cloud with Azure arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript
-
One of the "improvements" I find really complicated is the range operator.
string name;
name = "My name is Sander Rossel".Substring(11);
name = "My name is Sander Rossel"[11..];Now tell me, which line of code better conveys my purpose? :~ Pattern matching is nice, but should be rarely needed in proper OOP.
Exception ex = new Exception();
switch (ex)
{
case InvalidCastException:
break;
case InvalidOperationException:
break;
case NullReferenceException:
break;
default:
break;
}// The alternative is, of course, an if-else statement.
var exType = ex.GetType();
if (exType == typeof(InvalidCastException))
{ }
else if (exType == typeof(InvalidOperationException))
{ }
else
{ }There's probably an advantage to the pattern matching, but it doesn't do much for readability. I love named tuples though.
public (string firstName, string lastName) GetNameParts(string name) { }
// Usage...
(var firstName, var lastName) = GetNameParts("Sander Rossel");
// Or...
var tuple = GetNameParts("Sander Rossel");
Console.WriteLine(tuple.firstName);And of course string interpolation, which greatly improves readability and decreases change of bugs.
Console.WriteLine($"Hi {firstName} {lastName}, welcome to {appName}!");
// vs.
Console.WriteLine(string.Format("Hi {0} {1}, welcome to {2}!", firstName, lastName, appName);If I could keep only one language improvement from about the last ten years it would be string interpolation!
Best, Sander Azure DevOps Succinctly (free eBook) Azure Serverless Succinctly (free eBook) Migrating Apps to the Cloud with Azure arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript
Which code better conveys your purpose? The second. Using ranges in Python for the last five million yeasrs, it is a joy to see them in C#. The only thing to remember, as in most languages that use slices and ranges, in [start..end] is that "end" is a stop and is not included in the range.
Console.WriteLine("Hello World!"[1..5]);
Console.WriteLine("Hello World!"[..5]);
Both give us "Hello" rom [0] to [4] stopping at [5].
-
A question in the C++ forum today led me to C++ conformance improvements in Visual Studio 2019 | Microsoft Docs[^]. It seems to me that C++ is getting more and more complex and only a select few (some of whom are regulars here) will understand and be able to use these features. So I have to wonder who benefits from them, apart from the compiler writers who will definitely keep their jobs.
I believe code should read like a story. It makes for maintainability which is my primary concern. Very often the C# developers seem to believe that minimum typing is the objective of the language and add things that remove from the story. Choose what your priority is. I hate these stupid new features that hide what the story is saying. It's like a conversation with an idiot. You have no idea what they are saying.
-
A question in the C++ forum today led me to C++ conformance improvements in Visual Studio 2019 | Microsoft Docs[^]. It seems to me that C++ is getting more and more complex and only a select few (some of whom are regulars here) will understand and be able to use these features. So I have to wonder who benefits from them, apart from the compiler writers who will definitely keep their jobs.
When you look at a list of C++ changes in isolation, and without any motivating commentary they look hopelessly esoteric and unimportant. My experience with modern C++ features is that one day you will be looking for a way to solve a problem, and suddenly it will hit you, "Ah ha! That's what < feature X> is for." C++ is becoming a very complex language. But the things added to C++ are put there by a bunch of really smart people who are experienced developers. It all has a purpose.
-
When you look at a list of C++ changes in isolation, and without any motivating commentary they look hopelessly esoteric and unimportant. My experience with modern C++ features is that one day you will be looking for a way to solve a problem, and suddenly it will hit you, "Ah ha! That's what < feature X> is for." C++ is becoming a very complex language. But the things added to C++ are put there by a bunch of really smart people who are experienced developers. It all has a purpose.
-
A question in the C++ forum today led me to C++ conformance improvements in Visual Studio 2019 | Microsoft Docs[^]. It seems to me that C++ is getting more and more complex and only a select few (some of whom are regulars here) will understand and be able to use these features. So I have to wonder who benefits from them, apart from the compiler writers who will definitely keep their jobs.
I actually haven't learned anything new since C++ 2003 I still look at C++ as C with objects, so for me it hasn't needed updating since it's standardization in the 90's. I never used the dreaded Templates (memory hoggers) but I've heard that they have improved since 2003. So if you're like me that still codes in C++ as if it were C, then it's like "Why fix what ain't broken? There's always assembler"
-
Which code better conveys your purpose? The second. Using ranges in Python for the last five million yeasrs, it is a joy to see them in C#. The only thing to remember, as in most languages that use slices and ranges, in [start..end] is that "end" is a stop and is not included in the range.
Console.WriteLine("Hello World!"[1..5]);
Console.WriteLine("Hello World!"[..5]);
Both give us "Hello" rom [0] to [4] stopping at [5].
I think your opinion comes from the "....Using ranges in Python for the last five million years..." If you're used to ranges, then the second version is more obvious. If you're not, it's pretty mysterious.
-
Same thing is happening with C#. What was once the one of the cleanest languages is accruing debris.
cheers Chris Maunder
You beat me to it chris, I was just about to say exactly the same thing. Myself and a colleague, where talking about this the other day, and basically came to the conclusion that all languages now have to take this approach, simply to appease the 15 minute attention span of the instant feedback generation.
