|
What shell I say to a bad yolk like that? One thing, for sure: at this time of year, everyone wants a dye-hard boiled version.
[edit]
During most of the year I would eggs-plain why.
[/edit]
Special punishing remark for you carnivores: Nothing but bacon flavored Peeps for the next week!
Ravings en masse^ |
---|
"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 |
modified 2-Apr-21 11:50am.
|
|
|
|
|
Absolutely - when I was hunting for a new dye-it I found that they are (over) easy to make and I am not scrambling to get ready in the mornings.
If you can't laugh at yourself - ask me and I will do it for you.
|
|
|
|
|
That quacked me up.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
I'm with you. There isn't much beyond C++11 that I've found use for, at least so far. C++17 added <filesystem> , 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Same thing is happening with C#. What was once the one of the cleanest languages is accruing debris.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Yes ... I've stopped reading "What's New".
The alternative is: "MS is killing C#!!"
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
this.
I don't know much C# and getting into an existing C# project is hell difficult to understand.
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
|
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;
}
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) { }
(var firstName, var lastName) = GetNameParts("Sander Rossel");
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}!");
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!
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Named tuples and interpolated strings are awesome, as is the ?? operator and the ?. operator. Those stay.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I've been using ? and ?? so much I don't even consider them new anymore! So completely agreed
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
We need "the next big thing".
|
|
|
|
|
"C" - oh, wait, the next BIG THING:
C
Ravings en masse^ |
---|
"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.
|
|
|
|
|
Hm, as an embedded system designer/programmer (now retired), I used C++ for most of my programing in the last 15 years of my career. Using templates for things like FIFOs, queues, digital oscillators, filter parts, etc made my code cleaner and easier to write. I did stay away from dynamic object creation/destruction and I didn't use C++ exceptions.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
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
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.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
SeattleC++ wrote: It all has a purpose. Yes, to confuse poor old sods like me.
|
|
|
|