• Nicholas Wilson (4/4) Jun 12 2017 https://accu.org/index.php/journals/2379
• Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQ=?= (5/7) Jun 12 2017 It isn't all that bad in practice, but you need an IDE to write
• =?UTF-8?Q?Ali_=c3=87ehreli?= (7/8) Jun 12 2017 All the help is valuable but C++ code can be impossible to understand
• Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQ=?= (16/18) Jun 12 2017 Probably, but when you write code with a set of tools you adapt

Nicholas Wilson <iamthewilsonator hotmail.com> writes:

https://accu.org/index.php/journals/2379
https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/6gqc1c/accu_initialization_in_c_is_bonkers/

Rings very much of Scott Meyer's 2014 dconf talk.
I knew it was bad but I didn't think it was that bad!

Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQ=?= writes:

On Monday, 12 June 2017 at 08:37:14 UTC, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
 Rings very much of Scott Meyer's 2014 dconf talk.
 I knew it was bad but I didn't think it was that bad!

It isn't all that bad in practice, but you need an IDE to write 
C++ code... Basically, the type checking in C++ is somewhat weak 
because of backwards compatibility, but a decent IDE will for the 
common case add stronger typing hints for you.

=?UTF-8?Q?Ali_=c3=87ehreli?= <acehreli yahoo.com> writes:

On 06/12/2017 02:08 AM, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:

 you need an IDE to write C++ code

All the help is valuable but C++ code can be impossible to understand 
(in reasonable time) for IDEs as well. Anastasia Kazakova's C++Now 2017 
talk "A look at C++ through the glasses of a language tool" was on how 
difficult it is for a tool to understand what a piece of C++ code is:

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sg3BEB6JP2c

Ali

Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQ=?= writes:

On Monday, 12 June 2017 at 18:08:46 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
 All the help is valuable but C++ code can be impossible to 
 understand (in reasonable time) for IDEs as well.

Probably, but when you write code with a set of tools you adapt 
patterns so the tools and what you do with the tools match up. So 
taking over a convoluted code base is different from writing a 
new program.

But there clearly are certain areas of generic programming with 
constructors and initializers that can be surprisingly 
challenging in C++. If you want mix templated constructors that 
take lists of literals and many other types then you have to be 
careful to get the correct constructors to match up properly with 
the actual arguments provided. The rules of resolution are 
difficult to remember, which is rather counter productive.

In C++ I have found that giving up some generic ambitions and 
making generic types simpler is the best way to stay productive. 
Probably true for any language, but especially true for C++ I 
think.