|
"What? Where does that exist?" was my thought, too.
When Microsoft came up with their "Task"s, that made the impression that it could make working with Threads easier. But the concept of "thread safety" was totally forgotten - e.g. there is no consistent information on the usability of "Monitor.Enter" (or its short form "lock") with Tasks...
Oh sanctissimi Wilhelmus, Theodorus, et Fredericus!
|
|
|
|
|
I couldn't check "Macros" because many of their uses in C++ are abominations. But I would have checked "Generics" or "Templates".
|
|
|
|
|
Is it any wonder that I'm mainly a C / C++ developer? And that my gripe with C++/11 and beyond is the increased syntax complexity?
GCS d--(d+) s-/++ a C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
I like C++11, though I don't use all of it. But beyond that, there's very little that interests me.
EDIT: Actually, I don't use that much C++11 either. But I wouldn't want to give up unique_ptr.
modified 4-Jan-21 6:58am.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh the additions are great, I gripe mostly with the overuse of lambda functions where unneeded. Their syntax is also unforgiving, it overloads almost every single symbol of the language and combine it in a non intuitive sequence.
unique_ptr and shared_ptr are freaking great.
GCS d--(d+) s-/++ a C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe your point explains why, no matter how much they "enhance" C++ and accessorize C#, plain vanilla "C" still stays around and maintains popularity.
When I retire I'll return to my roots.
| 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 |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm largely with @Daniel-Pfeffer on this, although I also voted for simplicity in the syntax.
A lot of the other stuff is "fluff" that can make the coding journey a bit easier and Speed/Efficiency isn't always required and we may not want to sacrifice readability to acquire it.
Isn't this why we choose "horses for courses" - the appropriate language for the task we are addressing
|
|
|
|
|
It isnt only make the coding easier, but avoids bunches of errors. For instance in Swift you have strong typing and nullability from the compiler and so such errors occur very rarely. The speed off the apps are so good that it isnt an issue.
"Speed" also means development speed. Ask your managers and accountants for the reason 
Press F1 for help or google it.
Greetings from Germany
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Ask your managers and accountants for the reason
The last time I asked a question like that much of our development work was "off-shore" and it was apparently cheaper to have the work done off-shore and tested in-house ... despite this being a (felt like an infinite) loop of passing the code back and forth for weeks on end. Often the code didn't even compile never mind actually work. So "speed of development" needs to be "speed of development to completion" for me
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, normally there is a budget to do things. Waisting money for crap is never a good idea.
Press F1 for help or google it.
Greetings from Germany
|
|
|
|
|
KarstenK wrote: Ask your managers and accountants for the reason
That, my friend, is a real rookie mistake.
| 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 |
|
|
|
|
|
maybe you understood the "secret message" more than the obvious one 
Press F1 for help or google it.
Greetings from Germany
|
|
|
|
|
The most important attribute of a language is that it allow the programmer to specify a program concisely and unambiguously, while allowing for future maintenance. This disqualifies languages such as APL.
An essential attribute for large projects is separate compilation & linkage, which allow more than one person to work on the code base.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: it allow the programmer to specify a program concisely and unambiguously, while allowing for future maintenance.
I would say that is the most important attribute of a programmer, regardless of language. 
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: I would say that is the most important attribute of a programmer
That, too. However, the tools are also important. "Write-only" languages such as APL do not lend themselves to maintenance; it is usually cheaper to just rewrite the program.
This works very well for code snippets, not so well for e.g. the SABRE airline ticket ordering system...
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: "Write-only" languages such as APL
... and write-only language features like regular expressions. @CodeWitch and I got into a discussion about that the other day.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
