3 ms·

I’ve been programming for living since 2000, but I don’t think that’s relevant. No reason not to use what’s available in standard libraries of whatever language

I’ve been programming for living since 2000, but I don’t think that’s relevant. No reason not to use what’s available in standard libraries of whatever language you’re writing. For example, C++ on AMD64 is very likely to compile std::clamp<double> into 2 instructions, minsd and maxsd. I’m not so sure about nested ternaries mentioned elsewhere in the comments.

naikrovek 6y ago
There are very good reasons to avoid std:: stuff. And if you don't already know that in your soul, I will appear to be a genuine crackpot, and the reasons not to use std::* will still exist.
- kcb 6y ago
  Are you saying a C++ developer shouldn't use the standard library?
  - Tuna-Fish 6y ago
    Not the person you are replying to, but "a lot of the standard library is horrifying and should never be touched" is pretty standard advice for C++. Mind, I don't think this particular function belongs to that set.
  - klyrs 6y ago
    Many performance-critical C++ programmers treat std with suspicion. One thing to keep in mind is that the interface is standard, but the implementations are not, and can foil you on cross-platform development. Another is that you might not need everything that a std container provides, and you can get away with a streamlined data structure that doesn't support those unnecessary operations. But as a sibling commenter notes... this isn't relevant for min/max.
    - kcb 6y ago
      I'd much rather work on an application that utilized the standard lib than one that brought in dependencies and custom data structures. If it really is a bottleneck on a hot path then go for it. But not using it because of some ancient anecdotes is going to lead to an unmaintainable mess.
- Const-me 6y ago
  I think you’re overgeneralizing here. I’m aware some parts of C++ standard library are outright horrible, like iostream and I/O in general. Other parts are questionable, like date & time, locales, and futures. Meanwhile, other parts of the same standard library are actually OK (most collections, threading, synchronization, atomics, smart pointers, initializer lists). And other parts are awesome, like most of the stuff from <algorithm> header. Apparently, one of the C++ design goals was to not pay for features which aren’t used. Selectively ignoring stuff from the standard library doesn’t have much downsides.
nickysielicki 6y ago
https://godbolt.org/z/bq5E8h https://godbolt.org/z/bq5E8h It's actually the std::min/std::max version that goes to minsd/maxsd in both clang/gcc.

naikrovek 6y ago

There are very good reasons to avoid std:: stuff. And if you don't already know that in your soul, I will appear to be a genuine crackpot, and the reasons not to use std::* will still exist.

kcb 6y ago
Are you saying a C++ developer shouldn't use the standard library?
- Tuna-Fish 6y ago
  Not the person you are replying to, but "a lot of the standard library is horrifying and should never be touched" is pretty standard advice for C++. Mind, I don't think this particular function belongs to that set.
- klyrs 6y ago
  Many performance-critical C++ programmers treat std with suspicion. One thing to keep in mind is that the interface is standard, but the implementations are not, and can foil you on cross-platform development. Another is that you might not need everything that a std container provides, and you can get away with a streamlined data structure that doesn't support those unnecessary operations. But as a sibling commenter notes... this isn't relevant for min/max.
  - kcb 6y ago
    I'd much rather work on an application that utilized the standard lib than one that brought in dependencies and custom data structures. If it really is a bottleneck on a hot path then go for it. But not using it because of some ancient anecdotes is going to lead to an unmaintainable mess.
Const-me 6y ago
I think you’re overgeneralizing here. I’m aware some parts of C++ standard library are outright horrible, like iostream and I/O in general. Other parts are questionable, like date & time, locales, and futures. Meanwhile, other parts of the same standard library are actually OK (most collections, threading, synchronization, atomics, smart pointers, initializer lists). And other parts are awesome, like most of the stuff from <algorithm> header. Apparently, one of the C++ design goals was to not pay for features which aren’t used. Selectively ignoring stuff from the standard library doesn’t have much downsides.

nickysielicki 6y ago

https://godbolt.org/z/bq5E8h https://godbolt.org/z/bq5E8h It's actually the std::min/std::max version that goes to minsd/maxsd in both clang/gcc.