|
No, it was common in the UK as well. Throw a bag into the laundry and it adds a bleaching agent.
|
|
|
|
|
Since I'm moving to VS2022, I've decided to reorganise my (rather chaotic) library and utility code base: some of it is still building for x86 in a 64 bit world, and there are a lot of possible DLL's / projects to include in new project reference.
So I've set aside a couple of days to reorganise it all into four Solutions:
Templates (for VS templates as I have to regenerate them each time I move to a new version, and I use half a dozen or so)
Utility Code (which is generic and doesn't interact with DB's, Displays, etc).
Utility Controls
Utility Applications
So, I create my first Template project - a Class Library with my default Regions added, an automatic Timestamp, and (later) the standard references to the Utility Code. Based on teh VS Class Library template.
Compile, it's fine. Export as a template, work around MS lies, get it recognised as a template I can use in a C\ app.
Create the new Utility Code project, using the "Class Library with Regions" template.
Add the first CS file from the previous layout.
Add the second ... Wait a minute ... what are those red lines?
Who the decided that reference types would default to non-nullable in C# 8.0?
That's a breaking change you halfwit!
Massive sections of my code no longer compile any more due to this stupidity.
I see what you were trying to do, but making it a breaking change is just moronic - and means I have to disable iot globally and slowly work my way into it - particularly as many default method parameters use null.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yep, as he said you can set an option.
Yep, it's a breaking (unbreaking by config) change.
Their heart is certainly in the right place in trying to catch issues as you code.
I can't think of a better way to go about it and they DID us notice a starting a couple of releases back that it was coming.
I know that doesn't help your brief WTF shock.
As someone further on said, a reasonable idea and leads to less breakable code and the fix isn't tough in the singular instance, but it depends on how many instances you have how big of a task to make the changes.
Good luck!
|
|
|
|
|
You created your own template - so can't you just disable nullable in that template? Or is there something I missed?
As it will be very hard to find a reason to not enable nullable for a new code base, I agree with Microsoft it should be the default in new projects.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that it is intrusive to an older code-base to force this change.
It seems crazy that you'll now have work to do when all you are doing is upgrading to newer version & (re)compiling.
In this case, you knew that reference types were nullable and handled them properly.
Is there just a flag to set in the project somewhere?
|
|
|
|
|
You can tell it not to check, but that's just delaying the problem - and potentially causing more confusion if someone reuses the code for a similar purpose and it then throws up (pretty much incomprehensible) errors on identical code ...
And I suspect it'll be worse for "newer coders" since they all seem to use var exclusively instead of explicit typing, so the actual type of a variable will change and throw up yet more errors later on ...
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
var should be banished to the depths of time! If you can't explicitly type the variable then you obviously don't understand the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
var is like auto in C++, right? I use it wherever possible. I know what the type is. If the reader doesn't, they need to learn so that they'll truly understand the code.
|
|
|
|
|
So,
Greg Utas wrote: auto in C++, right? I use it wherever possible. I know what the type is. If the reader doesn't, they need to learn so that they'll truly understand the code.
You hide your variable types behind the auto keyword and have an elevated THREAD_PRIORITY_HIGHEST thread in all your multi-threaded processes.
Any other tips you want to share? It just keeps getting better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yep,
I'd like to get your opinion on something. Would you be willing to do that?
How does the auto keyword impact the reliability, debuggability and robustness of C++ code?
|
|
|
|
|
I'm always willing to play the straight man!
The main problem with auto is that the type ends up being something that you need to consider more carefully:
for(auto i = container.size() - 1; i >= 0; --i)... and you've got an infinite loop because i is unsigned. I've been burned by this a few times, so have learned to write int instead of auto here. But that overrides the type; "correctly" saying size_t would cause the same problem.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks,
I'm still learning the ropes. But I do enjoy hanging out with you guys in the Lounge.
|
|
|
|
|
Awesome to see such productive back and forth comments. Seemed to border on getting offtrack, but was rescued at the last moment. Great work guys!
|
|
|
|
|
Nah,
I was twisting the dagger down to the last letter[^]. I just wrote it using double entendre so that only a poet could know it.
I like Greg, this is just my unique way of showing it. I think he can handle it.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm probably missing a joke or 2 here, but I'm having a hard time seeing the benefit of auto-typing.
Since you 100%, always, with 0 possible exceptions know the complete type when you're writing the code..
Why would you want to obscure it?
It's like having both a pig, and some lipstick, and feeling compelled to apply the latter to the former just because you can.
|
|
|
|
|
When using templates in C++, the type can be a mess, so it looks like a pig. Using auto also lets me keep lines to 80 characters while rarely having to spill them. So the pig disappears, and all that's left is the lipstick. Call it the Cheshire Pig!
|
|
|
|
|
I'd be more likely to use an iterator for that case. Besides, doesn't the compiler generate a warning/error? It should know that testing an unsigned against all positive integers always returns true and seems common enough for them to catch it.
Where Auto/Var shine for me is that it's more readable in the more normal SomeObject object = new SomeObject(Parameters) case.
|
|
|
|
|
I usually use an iterator for that too but wanted to come up with an example quickly. And you're right that the compiler will probably give a warning.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: var is like auto in C++, right?
I used to think that. But I am not so sure anymore in terms of the net effect in each language.
In our C# code, I demand that the type be determinable by reading the line the type is defined on. I.e. if a variable is initialized by a value returned from a method, you best not use var. The reasoning is not that a developer can't determine the type with enough effort. It is the time it takes someone reading the code to KNOW what the code is doing and meant to do. At the end of the day it is about developer productivity. Experienced developers aren't questioning if they can make something work or focusing on the time it takes to key in their code. It is how effective they are at solving problems and maintaining volumes of code. Using var is optimizing the writing of code at the expense of the total cost of the code over the life of the code.
But, when moving over to C++ and understanding the design best practice of (Always Use Auto), I had to step back and evaluate why someone would recommend a coding pattern that made code take longer to understand and would drop developer productivity.
In the end, I came to the conclusion that the C# patterns that we tend to use don't use structs, almost always use classes, and as a result, put the memory on the heap. In these scenarios there is no runtime benefit the compiler can help you with that makes your code more effective since all non primitive variables are just references. var only gives an opportunity to save time typing code at the expense of maintaining it.
C++ on the other hand appears to prefer patterns where local variables do not use the heap and the compiler is both optimizing the implicit type conversion and if it can use a reference instead of a copy with every variable use. In the patterns I am aware of, it is minimizing the copying of data and the running of class move/copy/ctor/dtor methods for you. Without using auto here, the compiler's hands have been tied.
All of that being said, I would like the input of those who have written a lot of modern C++ to see if I am missing anything.
I also believe that if our C# code used structs that had implicit type conversions more, the reasoning of not allowing var may be misguided. Although I have not pulled on this thread and do not know much about the C# compiler optimization in these cases.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm unaware of any way that auto helps to produce more efficient code. If you don't want a deep copy, you have to write auto& id = .... And if it's const , you have to write const auto id = ....
Yes, Herb Sutter wrote an article "Almost Always Auto (AAA)." As far as someone reading the code having to look up the type returned by a function goes, my take is that knowing the type is only the first step to understanding. The reader also needs to know the function's purpose, which means reading its interface documentation. And given that we sometimes fall short on that front, it can also mean reading its implementation. Providing the type can therefore be detrimental by giving a false sense of security.
Although I haven't used C#, I'd be surprised if best practices for when to use the heap versus the stack weren't the same in both languages.
|
|
|
|
|
Greg, thank you for the reply.
It looks like the reason auto makes this more efficient that I was recalling was wrong. Although my conclusion is somewhat the same. Rereading the AAA article, I picked out the point:
Quote: It is efficient by default and guarantees that no implicit conversions (including narrowing conversions), temporary objects, or wrapper indirections will occur. In particular, prefer using auto instead of function<> to name lambdas unless you need the type erasure and indirection.
The same is true of C# if one uses implicit conversions as can be seen in the following code:
public class T1 {
int m_count;
public T1(int cnt)
{
m_count = cnt;
}
public static implicit operator T2(T1 t1) {
return new T2(t1.m_count.ToString());
}
}
public class T2 {
string m_count;
public T2(string count) {
m_count = count;
}
}
public class Class1
{
T1 GenerateValue() {
return new T1(22);
}
void temp() {
T2 t2_implicit = GenerateValue();
T1 t1_explicit = GenerateValue();
var t1_implicit = GenerateValue();
}
}
This means my original statement was in error. The reason we "benefit" from not using var has little to do with us not using structs. It is because we don't use implicit conversions on the vast majority of our classes/structs. So the potential "mistake" of accidentally forcing an unnecessary type conversion is minimal and is outweighed by putting type information at the developers fingertips.
Quote: Although I haven't used C#, I'd be surprised if best practices for when to use the heap versus the stack weren't the same in both languages.
The thing that makes C# different from C++ in this case is that all memory created to hold instances of a class cannot be placed on the stack. Class instance memory is always placed on the heap and managed by the garbage collector (GC). On the other hand, a struct is always considered a value type and storage follows the same as it would for an int or other primitive. That means it is either on the stack or occupying space in a (typically larger) object on the heap. You also can't hold a reference to a struct in another object. I think this tends to modify design patterns a bit between the languages.
Since you clearly know modern C++ better than I do, perhaps you could comment on how common it is to use implicit type conversion (constructors or operators) in classes such that common programming practices need to guard against unintentional implicit conversion.
|
|
|
|
|
That's interesting how C# treats classes and structs differently.
As far as implicit type conversion in C++ goes, a constructor that takes a single argument can be tagged explicit to the avoid unintended creation of an object. I've rarely used implicit construction because it can make the code opaque.
|
|
|
|
|
At the end of the day, it's still sacrificing ease of maintenance for better CPU performance.
No matter how you slice it, that's not a trade-off I'm comfortable with, given the average amount of defects per KLoC in C++ code.
Then again, I avoid writing C++ for specifically that reason.
(that and my hate for having to maintain and patch a couple of C++ projects that have long been abandoned by their creators)
|
|
|
|