5 ms·

> auto main(int argc, char argv) -> int What a horrible abuse of C++11 auto function declarations.

by mFixman 11y ago

btown 11y ago
The English language was used to write (insert your least favorite novel franchise here). What a horrible abuse of English. Is it idiomatic? No. Should it be used as an example for new learners of the language? Probably not. Should it be in an educational article? Probably not. But one person't "abuse" is another person's "creativity." I love seeing how syntax can evolve beyond its intended uses.
Bootvis 11y ago
It's new but is it really bad? It allows for more uniform code if you're using the new style for decltypes anyway. If I would make heavy use of that construct I would certainly prefer the definition used in the article.
- nadams 11y ago
  > It's new but is it really bad? My opinion - yes. I never imagined typing out type names was a hassle when using an IDE like Visual Studio. I know a number of people use it religiously - but when I read code I find it easier to read C++ with types than the auto keyword everywhere. But I'm sure a number of people still use vi (or emacs), and even smaller number of those people use gdb or some other debugger. Apparently Linus doesn't use a debugger [1]. I have some comments on that - but I'll keep them to myself. [1] http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2000090700221OSCYKN http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2000090700221OSCYKN
  - ingve 11y ago
    Quoting Herb Sutter, "AAA Style (Almost Always Auto)": "Guideline: Remember that preferring auto variables is motivated primarily by correctness, performance, maintainability, and robustness—and only lastly about typing convenience." [1] http://herbsutter.com/2013/08/12/gotw-94-solution-aaa-style-almost-always-auto/ http://herbsutter.com/2013/08/12/gotw-94-solution-aaa-style-...
    - StephanTLavavej 11y ago
      auto variables are different from trailing return types introduced by auto (a particularly egregious appropriation of a keyword for a totally different use).
      - pmelendez 11y ago
        > a particularly egregious appropriation of a keyword for a totally different use Which seems to be an often case in C++, class and class/typename comes to my mind. Also, old auto use was removed to the new set of meaning right?
        StephanTLavavej 11y ago
        Old auto was completely removed.
    - nadams 11y ago
      > correctness, performance, maintainability, and robustness What? I want whatever he is smoking. > correctness C++ allows for casting to/from different types (the core behind polymorphism) - but if you cast to the wrong type then that's your own fault. If you want a warm fuzzy feeling of not worrying about bad casts - use Python/Go/FreeBASIC/some other language. > performance That is complete and utter delusion. Your program won't run any faster or optimize better because you used the auto keyword [1]. If anything - it will take even longer (ms longer) to compile. > maintainability I have an odd feeling about that. Yeah you can change the return type of a method or function and you don't have to worry about changing the code calling those methods/functions. But if you are changing to a vastly different type - you are going to have to change the calling code anyways. > robustness I don't want the compiler to fix my mistakes. I want the compiler to tell me how stupid I am and force me to fix them. [1] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/19618759/c-11-auto-compile-time-or-runtime http://stackoverflow.com/questions/19618759/c-11-auto-compil...
  - dman 11y ago
    I have an identical complaint. Reading tutorials / books / api examples was dramatically easier before auto came on the scene. Now I have to have the header open on the side while I read api documentation, because most of the time I need the type information to decipher whats being written in the example.
    - pmelendez 11y ago
      Can you share exactly why? If it is because auto as returning type, the header wouldn't be of much of a help would it? I find it easier to read now, specially when using iterators on for loops.
      - dman 11y ago
        Heres an example -> auto now = boost::chrono::steady_clock::now().time_since_epoch(); auto timeSinceEpoch = boost::chrono::duration_cast<boost::chrono::milliseconds>(now).count(); (This is from http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16700277/get-a-double-from-boostchronosteady-clocknow http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16700277/get-a-double-fro...). The person writing the answer is dilligent and hence has supplied the types as a preamble. Most articles / answers / api docs dont take the effort to elaborate on return value types.
    - Bootvis 11y ago
      Probably you're already aware of this but it might be useful for you or others. Item 4 of Scott Meyers' Effective Modern C++[1] shows you how to get some type information without needing to open the headers yourself. [1]: http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920033707.do http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920033707.do
  - Bootvis 11y ago
    We seem to agree and disagree on a number of things but I was thinking of one specific use of the new syntax as described on SO[1]. Here, I believe that the new syntax is clearly easier to use and consistency can be a good thing. By the way, with this syntax the return type is still spelled out so it shouldn't matter IMO. [1]: http://stackoverflow.com/a/22515589/862288 http://stackoverflow.com/a/22515589/862288

> auto main(int argc, char argv) -> int What a horrible abuse of C++11 auto function declarations.

by mFixman 11y ago

> auto main(int argc, char argv) -> int What a horrible abuse of C++11 auto function declarations.

btown 11y ago

The English language was used to write (insert your least favorite novel franchise here). What a horrible abuse of English. Is it idiomatic? No. Should it be used as an example for new learners of the language? Probably not. Should it be in an educational article? Probably not. But one person't "abuse" is another person's "creativity." I love seeing how syntax can evolve beyond its intended uses.

Bootvis 11y ago

It's new but is it really bad? It allows for more uniform code if you're using the new style for decltypes anyway. If I would make heavy use of that construct I would certainly prefer the definition used in the article.

nadams 11y ago
> It's new but is it really bad? My opinion - yes. I never imagined typing out type names was a hassle when using an IDE like Visual Studio. I know a number of people use it religiously - but when I read code I find it easier to read C++ with types than the auto keyword everywhere. But I'm sure a number of people still use vi (or emacs), and even smaller number of those people use gdb or some other debugger. Apparently Linus doesn't use a debugger [1]. I have some comments on that - but I'll keep them to myself. [1] http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2000090700221OSCYKN http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2000090700221OSCYKN
- ingve 11y ago
  Quoting Herb Sutter, "AAA Style (Almost Always Auto)": "Guideline: Remember that preferring auto variables is motivated primarily by correctness, performance, maintainability, and robustness—and only lastly about typing convenience." [1] http://herbsutter.com/2013/08/12/gotw-94-solution-aaa-style-almost-always-auto/ http://herbsutter.com/2013/08/12/gotw-94-solution-aaa-style-...
  - StephanTLavavej 11y ago
    auto variables are different from trailing return types introduced by auto (a particularly egregious appropriation of a keyword for a totally different use).
    - pmelendez 11y ago
      > a particularly egregious appropriation of a keyword for a totally different use Which seems to be an often case in C++, class and class/typename comes to my mind. Also, old auto use was removed to the new set of meaning right?
      - StephanTLavavej 11y ago
        Old auto was completely removed.
  - nadams 11y ago
    > correctness, performance, maintainability, and robustness What? I want whatever he is smoking. > correctness C++ allows for casting to/from different types (the core behind polymorphism) - but if you cast to the wrong type then that's your own fault. If you want a warm fuzzy feeling of not worrying about bad casts - use Python/Go/FreeBASIC/some other language. > performance That is complete and utter delusion. Your program won't run any faster or optimize better because you used the auto keyword [1]. If anything - it will take even longer (ms longer) to compile. > maintainability I have an odd feeling about that. Yeah you can change the return type of a method or function and you don't have to worry about changing the code calling those methods/functions. But if you are changing to a vastly different type - you are going to have to change the calling code anyways. > robustness I don't want the compiler to fix my mistakes. I want the compiler to tell me how stupid I am and force me to fix them. [1] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/19618759/c-11-auto-compile-time-or-runtime http://stackoverflow.com/questions/19618759/c-11-auto-compil...
- dman 11y ago
  I have an identical complaint. Reading tutorials / books / api examples was dramatically easier before auto came on the scene. Now I have to have the header open on the side while I read api documentation, because most of the time I need the type information to decipher whats being written in the example.
  - pmelendez 11y ago
    Can you share exactly why? If it is because auto as returning type, the header wouldn't be of much of a help would it? I find it easier to read now, specially when using iterators on for loops.
    - dman 11y ago
      Heres an example -> auto now = boost::chrono::steady_clock::now().time_since_epoch(); auto timeSinceEpoch = boost::chrono::duration_cast<boost::chrono::milliseconds>(now).count(); (This is from http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16700277/get-a-double-from-boostchronosteady-clocknow http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16700277/get-a-double-fro...). The person writing the answer is dilligent and hence has supplied the types as a preamble. Most articles / answers / api docs dont take the effort to elaborate on return value types.
  - Bootvis 11y ago
    Probably you're already aware of this but it might be useful for you or others. Item 4 of Scott Meyers' Effective Modern C++[1] shows you how to get some type information without needing to open the headers yourself. [1]: http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920033707.do http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920033707.do
- Bootvis 11y ago
  We seem to agree and disagree on a number of things but I was thinking of one specific use of the new syntax as described on SO[1]. Here, I believe that the new syntax is clearly easier to use and consistency can be a good thing. By the way, with this syntax the return type is still spelled out so it shouldn't matter IMO. [1]: http://stackoverflow.com/a/22515589/862288 http://stackoverflow.com/a/22515589/862288