9 ms·

I dont know offhand if it's illegal, but it's certainly unnecessarily verbose. Likewise, every compiler I've used accepts it, but it's unnecessary. Also, maybe

I dont know offhand if it's illegal, but it's certainly unnecessarily verbose. Likewise, every compiler I've used accepts it, but it's unnecessary. Also, maybe a difference in behavior if code is in 'extern "C"' or not. I'm not sure. I rarely directly deal with C libs and havent been doing C++ for about 6 months now.

harry8 7y ago
Unnecessary is a question of taste, right? foo(void) seems less likely to cause confusion to anyone who hasn't got that C vs C++ distinction uppermost in their mind - I didn't. Nobody knows C++, we all know a subset of it and a smaller subset than we think we do and actually use, despite pretty constant study! Anything you do that makes a reader less likely to be confused, to make it less likely that they will or should break their flow by looking up the rule, is a good thing (tm). C++ suffers from "macho coding" styles and ethos quite badly. "I /believe/ I understand this subtlety at this moment so anyone who doesn't is stupid." Even when we didn't understand it ourselves just last week we forget it(!) We fool ourselves into thinking anyone who hasn't got at least a decade of hacking C++ every day is unworthy of reading our code, possibly pretending that 6 months can attain that level of oneness with changing standards. I try to use popular and safer features without thinking about it and if I want to use something slightly less popular when there is a choice, I ask "what problem am I solving? Is lowering readability a price I'm happy to pay here?" Before charging ahead with it. I probably classify some of the latter as the former due to over-familiarity. The ideal C++ code is rapidly readable and understandable without extremely taxing effort by a smart highschool student with 2-3 months of C++ experience. (Note the use of the word ideal in that sentence). s/C++/any language/ is also applicable. Other than following the style of the project you're working on is there any reason to use a reference ever over say a const pointer? Or a const pointer to a const object? The syntax then makes it clear you're not dealing with a pass-by-value copy. Maybe in another world everything would be const by default and have to be marked mutable then references might go away - but C++ couldn't do that and compile C which explains /some/ of the tension inside the language between various C++ features. Shame they didn't make references const by default if they had to introduce them. And member functions defaulting to const and explicit constructors by default. Const construction by default etc. There was an opportunity lost a long time ago to tighten up everything that isn't legal C as far as possible with the programmer having the option with an additional keyword.
- hermitdev 7y ago
  I largely agree with what you say, but can you elaborate on what you mean by "macho coding" styles? I'm guessing youre referring to when one deigns venture into template metaprogramming. TMP is an area with 2 decades of experience, I can basically only do it with a copy of the standard and/or relevant reference material handy. Although I'd consider my C++ knowledge in the 95th percentile or so, I probably know less than 20% of the std lib well. I've read most of the +1200 pages of the C++11 spec, but ive not kept up to date since, sadly, because its no longer my daily language.
  - harry8 7y ago
    What I mean is anything that is showing off, has a lack of humility and implicitly disparages others in a way that is totally unneeded while producing lower-quality, less-maintainable, less robust code. Being clever for the sake of appearing clever. That kind of thing. if(condition) I_am_tough_so_I_do_not_brace(); The un-braced block is a classic "macho" pose in code. leaving out a '{' and a '}', two characters, has no benefit in any way, shape or form. It is decrying "I will never make a mistake with this loose razor blade if you do maintaining it is because you suck" There is literally no reason to do it ever, under any circumstances. Yet I have, and we do. We can change. Now watch the arguments presented when you bring un-braced blocks up. They're insanely ridiculous. (vertical space, need static analysis, etc.) If you were betting your retirement savings on no bug in the line of code now or in the future, you'd be very nervous about it sure. And then you would brace it. Unbraced blocks are a minor thing that mostly don't matter. I wouldn't fight too hard over it. It's just that it's so very, very clear that one way is bugs for zero benefit while the other isn't. Meh. So here's Bjarne being "Uber-Macho" to the delight of the conference crowd. Note the quote: "I think I understand what you're saying and I think you happen to be wrong." (crowd whoops in glee). https://youtu.be/OB-bdWKwXsU?t=4141 https://youtu.be/OB-bdWKwXsU?t=4141 This is a pretty ugly way of saying "I disagree and this is why..." But the crowd loves it. That attitude gets into our code. "Macho coding" is the best descriptive name I can manage. Maybe there's a better one? (Note I agree with the content of Bjarne says, I just think he's being an asshole about it, why do that? https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Waltersobchakeit https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Waltersobcha... )

harry8 7y ago

Unnecessary is a question of taste, right? foo(void) seems less likely to cause confusion to anyone who hasn't got that C vs C++ distinction uppermost in their mind - I didn't. Nobody knows C++, we all know a subset of it and a smaller subset than we think we do and actually use, despite pretty constant study! Anything you do that makes a reader less likely to be confused, to make it less likely that they will or should break their flow by looking up the rule, is a good thing (tm). C++ suffers from "macho coding" styles and ethos quite badly. "I /believe/ I understand this subtlety at this moment so anyone who doesn't is stupid." Even when we didn't understand it ourselves just last week we forget it(!) We fool ourselves into thinking anyone who hasn't got at least a decade of hacking C++ every day is unworthy of reading our code, possibly pretending that 6 months can attain that level of oneness with changing standards. I try to use popular and safer features without thinking about it and if I want to use something slightly less popular when there is a choice, I ask "what problem am I solving? Is lowering readability a price I'm happy to pay here?" Before charging ahead with it. I probably classify some of the latter as the former due to over-familiarity. The ideal C++ code is rapidly readable and understandable without extremely taxing effort by a smart highschool student with 2-3 months of C++ experience. (Note the use of the word ideal in that sentence). s/C++/any language/ is also applicable. Other than following the style of the project you're working on is there any reason to use a reference ever over say a const pointer? Or a const pointer to a const object? The syntax then makes it clear you're not dealing with a pass-by-value copy. Maybe in another world everything would be const by default and have to be marked mutable then references might go away - but C++ couldn't do that and compile C which explains /some/ of the tension inside the language between various C++ features. Shame they didn't make references const by default if they had to introduce them. And member functions defaulting to const and explicit constructors by default. Const construction by default etc. There was an opportunity lost a long time ago to tighten up everything that isn't legal C as far as possible with the programmer having the option with an additional keyword.

hermitdev 7y ago
I largely agree with what you say, but can you elaborate on what you mean by "macho coding" styles? I'm guessing youre referring to when one deigns venture into template metaprogramming. TMP is an area with 2 decades of experience, I can basically only do it with a copy of the standard and/or relevant reference material handy. Although I'd consider my C++ knowledge in the 95th percentile or so, I probably know less than 20% of the std lib well. I've read most of the +1200 pages of the C++11 spec, but ive not kept up to date since, sadly, because its no longer my daily language.
- harry8 7y ago
  What I mean is anything that is showing off, has a lack of humility and implicitly disparages others in a way that is totally unneeded while producing lower-quality, less-maintainable, less robust code. Being clever for the sake of appearing clever. That kind of thing. if(condition) I_am_tough_so_I_do_not_brace(); The un-braced block is a classic "macho" pose in code. leaving out a '{' and a '}', two characters, has no benefit in any way, shape or form. It is decrying "I will never make a mistake with this loose razor blade if you do maintaining it is because you suck" There is literally no reason to do it ever, under any circumstances. Yet I have, and we do. We can change. Now watch the arguments presented when you bring un-braced blocks up. They're insanely ridiculous. (vertical space, need static analysis, etc.) If you were betting your retirement savings on no bug in the line of code now or in the future, you'd be very nervous about it sure. And then you would brace it. Unbraced blocks are a minor thing that mostly don't matter. I wouldn't fight too hard over it. It's just that it's so very, very clear that one way is bugs for zero benefit while the other isn't. Meh. So here's Bjarne being "Uber-Macho" to the delight of the conference crowd. Note the quote: "I think I understand what you're saying and I think you happen to be wrong." (crowd whoops in glee). https://youtu.be/OB-bdWKwXsU?t=4141 https://youtu.be/OB-bdWKwXsU?t=4141 This is a pretty ugly way of saying "I disagree and this is why..." But the crowd loves it. That attitude gets into our code. "Macho coding" is the best descriptive name I can manage. Maybe there's a better one? (Note I agree with the content of Bjarne says, I just think he's being an asshole about it, why do that? https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Waltersobchakeit https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Waltersobcha... )