2 ms·
Pattern matching is listed there, but I think the onus is on you to describe what you're talking about. I guarantee that any language (even the HN-beloved Rust
by banachtarski 7y ago
Pattern matching is listed there, but I think the onus is on you to describe what you're talking about. I guarantee that any language (even the HN-beloved Rust and Go) can produce hideous code.
- Razengan 7y ago> the onus is on you to describe what you're talking about. I'll start with a simple example. I haven't worked with C++ in ages and I hope never to, but in the last C++ file I came across: Right at the beginning there were 3 different kinds of include/import statements. One with "" and another with <> and I don't remember what the third was but it had yet another format. Now, I know what they mean, or I can look it up, and there may be a valid need for the distinction, but it is ugly. Here's another confusion I was recently reading about: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/516237/when-should-i-use-typedef-in-c https://stackoverflow.com/questions/516237/when-should-i-use... I find Assembly and "pure" C a lot more elegant than this nightmarish atrocity.
- krisrm 7y agoIf there's a valid need for the distinction, and it's straightforward (<>s search system libs first vs quotes search CWD first IIRC), what would be less ugly? Keeping in mind the vast number of C++ files out there that have already baked this convention in :)
- Razengan 7y agoHow about using the CLI path resolving convention, where you implicitly look in the CWD first and then the environment path? Specify specific paths by something like "$SYSTEM\foo.h" or "$CWD\foo.h" Either would be more readable and less magic than <> or ""