3 ms·
ML-family functional languages, which you seem a fan of, also trade performance for elegance, with few fortunate exceptions in case elegance goes far enough to
by HelloNurse 8y ago
ML-family functional languages, which you seem a fan of, also trade performance for elegance, with few fortunate exceptions in case elegance goes far enough to allow extreme optimizations that recover whole-program performance despite widespread inefficiency "in the small".
Significant bad parts of C++ have been deprecated or effectively replaced with something better; you just have to adopt the good way.
For example, the new initializer syntax allows for simpler and saner rules about type conversions and lookup of constructors.
- lmm 8y ago> ML-family functional languages, which you seem a fan of, also trade performance for elegance, with few fortunate exceptions in case elegance goes far enough to allow extreme optimizations that recover whole-program performance despite widespread inefficiency "in the small". I'm not convinced. Small-scale heavily-optimized microbenchmarks show C++ as at most a single-digit multiple faster than e.g. Haskell. I wouldn't expect you to achieve even that much over Rust. And like I said, I've yet to see such a performance advantage to C++ in a real-world scenario - quite the opposite. It's not always a tradeoff - sometimes one thing really is better than another thing. > Significant bad parts of C++ have been deprecated or effectively replaced with something better; you just have to adopt the good way. And ensure that all your libraries/tools/coworkers have adopted the good way, which you have no way of enforcing; at best you have ad-hoc linters that flag up some (but not all) bad practices.