6 ms·

Wow, this is the first post I have ever read that even kind of implied that Andrei Alexandrescu was a Blub programmer. Part of being a Blub programmer is that

Wow, this is the first post I have ever read that even kind of implied that Andrei Alexandrescu was a Blub programmer. Part of being a Blub programmer is that you don't even think about the issues. In regards to the weird features brought up, the underlying issues behind these features have been in the C++ consciousness for some time. Below are some talks and resources covering at least some of these issues. Sean Parent - Inheritance is the Base Class of Evil - https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjDxbLRp8DKAhVB9R4KHRW7A2sQtwIIIzAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DbIhUE5uUFOA&usg=AFQjCNHGTLJ5VCeo9fzZD7foEiT0q4lLhw&sig2=KFJ3vZoxQNbRb4CBpOjS-A https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c... Herb Sutter - You don't know const and mutable - http://herbsutter.com/2013/01/01/video-you-dont-know-const-and-mutable/ http://herbsutter.com/2013/01/01/video-you-dont-know-const-a... Andrei Alexandrescu - Systematic error handling in C++ - https://channel9.msdn.com/Shows/Going+Deep/C-and-Beyond-2012-Andrei-Alexandrescu-Systematic-Error-Handling-in-C https://channel9.msdn.com/Shows/Going+Deep/C-and-Beyond-2012... Herb Sutter - Writing Good C++ by Default - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEx5DNLWGgA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEx5DNLWGgA Andrew Sutton - Generic Programming with Concepts Lite - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwXq5MqY2ZA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwXq5MqY2ZA One of the things that helps with avoiding "Blubness" in C++ is the significant interest in languages such as Haskel (which is not considered a Blub language by anyone except Agda programmers) and in applying the techniques and insights where possible to C++ whether through writing new libraries (see for example Fit by Paul Fultz II -https://github.com/pfultz2/Fit https://github.com/pfultz2/Fit) or through new language features (see this post by David Sankel - http://davidsankel.com/uncategorized/c-language-support-for-pattern-matching-and-variants/ http://davidsankel.com/uncategorized/c-language-support-for-...) Finally, is also interesting that Paul Graham's blub paradox is being brought up in regards to Rust, C++, and D. The Paul Graham article is in large part talking about the power of meta-programming. In this regard, D and C++ are significantly more powerful in that regard. Features like higher kinded types (template templates), variadics, and non-type template parameters help in this matter. When you can write a function that can generically work with a tuple with any number and type of parameters, you can do some pretty neat stuff. For some examples take a look at Boost.Hana by Louis Dionne (http://boostorg.github.io/hana/ http://boostorg.github.io/hana/). In this regards, Rust is actually the Blub compared to D and C++.

steveklabnik 11y ago
> In this regards, Rust is actually the Blub I'm not so sure. We are aware of the features that they have; we just prefer the strongly-typed versions to the stringly-typed[1] versions. We do desire more meta-programming features, and they will happen. Like all decisions, we don't want to rush into them. 1: This is not _entirely_ accurate, but I'm slightly at a loss for how to exactly characterize this at this particular moment. Rust's metaprogramming guarantees that you always generate valid Rust code, D's does not.
- jbandela1 11y ago
  The last statement was more in regards to the Blub definition implied by the article. Of course, people who are immersed in programming language theory are not Blub programmers - they are aware of what is possible, but are also aware of the inherent tradeoffs. With regards to Rust, do you have any idea when more meta-programming features like variadics and non-type template parameters might be available in the language (are we looking at months, years, or decades)? Rust, has a lot of features that really interest me, but seeing the tuple serialization code brought back bad nightmares of simulating variadic templates using macros in C++ before I had a compiler that supported C++11 variadics. To me, at least personally, it felt like a step backward from C++14, and kind of curtailed my enthusiasm for doing a deep dive into the language. My test for the power of a language's type manipulation is how easy is it to write an implementation of apply(Function f, Tuple t) which will call f with the values of t. I would be most interested to see how Rust will implement this kind of metaprogramming.
  - steveklabnik 11y ago
    Yeah, I agree with my sibling comment above that Blub is kind of a weak concept for this reason. It's hard to say because the work for those features hasn't even been started; the MIR refactoring is still underway. Once that's done, RFCs for this stuff will start to appear, and we'll have a better idea of overall schedule. I would say that the current schedule is "longer than months, shorter than a few years". I myself _really_ want higher kinded types, but at the same time, I would rather wait and do it right than rush and regret thing slater. We have a solid language as it is; the need to get these more advanced features is not particularly urgent, in my opinion. I like to think on the long scale when it comes to the language: if it's going to be around 40 or 50 years, we're in year one. There's plenty of time.

steveklabnik 11y ago

> In this regards, Rust is actually the Blub I'm not so sure. We are aware of the features that they have; we just prefer the strongly-typed versions to the stringly-typed[1] versions. We do desire more meta-programming features, and they will happen. Like all decisions, we don't want to rush into them. 1: This is not _entirely_ accurate, but I'm slightly at a loss for how to exactly characterize this at this particular moment. Rust's metaprogramming guarantees that you always generate valid Rust code, D's does not.

jbandela1 11y ago
The last statement was more in regards to the Blub definition implied by the article. Of course, people who are immersed in programming language theory are not Blub programmers - they are aware of what is possible, but are also aware of the inherent tradeoffs. With regards to Rust, do you have any idea when more meta-programming features like variadics and non-type template parameters might be available in the language (are we looking at months, years, or decades)? Rust, has a lot of features that really interest me, but seeing the tuple serialization code brought back bad nightmares of simulating variadic templates using macros in C++ before I had a compiler that supported C++11 variadics. To me, at least personally, it felt like a step backward from C++14, and kind of curtailed my enthusiasm for doing a deep dive into the language. My test for the power of a language's type manipulation is how easy is it to write an implementation of apply(Function f, Tuple t) which will call f with the values of t. I would be most interested to see how Rust will implement this kind of metaprogramming.
- steveklabnik 11y ago
  Yeah, I agree with my sibling comment above that Blub is kind of a weak concept for this reason. It's hard to say because the work for those features hasn't even been started; the MIR refactoring is still underway. Once that's done, RFCs for this stuff will start to appear, and we'll have a better idea of overall schedule. I would say that the current schedule is "longer than months, shorter than a few years". I myself _really_ want higher kinded types, but at the same time, I would rather wait and do it right than rush and regret thing slater. We have a solid language as it is; the need to get these more advanced features is not particularly urgent, in my opinion. I like to think on the long scale when it comes to the language: if it's going to be around 40 or 50 years, we're in year one. There's plenty of time.