3 ms·
I prefer not to work on projects that ban exceptions and RTTI. These features (especially exceptions) are important parts of the language, and without them, you
by quotemstr 10y ago
I prefer not to work on projects that ban exceptions and RTTI. These features (especially exceptions) are important parts of the language, and without them, you can't reliably use most of the standard library (see bad_alloc) and can't really deliver value semantics, since you need awful hacks like two-phase initialization to communicate failure.
C++-without-exceptions is a very different and much worse language.
- vvanders 10y agoIf you're interested in limiting your market, there's a whole embedded and high performance space where this is critical. Considering LLVM takes the same stance[1] and they're the ones implementing language features that's good enough for me. [1] http://llvm.org/docs/CodingStandards.html#do-not-use-rtti-or-exceptions http://llvm.org/docs/CodingStandards.html#do-not-use-rtti-or...
- quotemstr 10y ago> If you're interested in limiting your market, there's a whole embedded and high performance space where this is critical. Well, it's a preference, not a hard requirement. I'll hold my nose and work on such a codebase if there are other reasons, like the project itself being very interesting. > Considering LLVM takes the same stance IMHO, that's a mistake. But LLVM is an example of a project that's compelling enough to work on despite what I consider a set of poor language choices.