3 ms·
I think there might be a terminology mixup here but he probably meant zero-overhead abstraction. And in any case, the point he's making is not a strawman argume
by mehrdadn 6y ago
I think there might be a terminology mixup here but he probably meant zero-overhead abstraction. And in any case, the point he's making is not a strawman argument.
- bregma 6y agoOK, let's substitute "overhead" for "cost in the argument. Premise one: C++ has zero overhead for most of its features, like smarts pointers: if you don't use them, they cost nothing. Premise two: using features like smart pointers adds a cost to your C++ program. Conclusion (due to the strawman logical fallacy): C++ is not zero overhead because there exists a feature that has a cost if you use it. I'd like to see the reasoning that leads to the same conclusion without resorting to the strawman logical fallacy.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- mehrdadn 6y agoHe talked about more than just unique_ptr if you actually watch the video, but I don't even get why you're dying to have such a pointless argument here. When you see free lunches offered somewhere, do you start arguing with people how everyone is wrong and there is such a thing as a free lunch too? Is it so hard to actually take the point and just move on instead of dissecting it like a mathematical theorem?