3 ms·

I've heard that line of reasoning before, and it doesn't make sense to me. Specifically, I find it alarming that it assumes two tiers of competent c++ develope

I've heard that line of reasoning before, and it doesn't make sense to me. Specifically, I find it alarming that it assumes two tiers of competent c++ developers: a lower tier that just uses libraries, and a higher tier that can write good libraries. I see two problems with this view. First, in my experience most large codebases are structured as many layes of libraries. So the envisioned non-library developer may be in the minority. Second, it's a red flag that the language's complexity dangerously high. If nothing else, one of the envisioned non-library developers may unwittingly write code that uses or misuses these features, and still need to debug incomprehensible compilation- or runtime-errors.

saagarjha 8y ago
> If nothing else, one of the envisioned non-library developers may unwittingly write code that uses or misuses these features, and still need to debug incomprehensible compilation- or runtime-errors. The reason that the code is this complicated is so that end users don’t shoot themselves in the foot (performance-wise, correctness-wise) when using these features. And error messages will get better when concepts land. To address your main point, though: there is always a separation between library authors and library consumers, even if they are written by the same people, because the requirements are different in each case. A library author must write general and useful code, while a library user can “get away with” hard coding logic and customizing uses to only cover what they need. Hence, the job of a library author is usually much harder.