32 ms·

Any C++ code I have ever worked with is littered with `std::`. Replacing all that with `otherlib::` would be a herculean effort at best. You might be tempted to

Any C++ code I have ever worked with is littered with `std::`. Replacing all that with `otherlib::` would be a herculean effort at best. You might be tempted to do a simple search and replace, but let's say there's also instances of `mystd::` (probably rare). Or perhaps you don't want _all_ `std::` to be replaced. Anyway, my point is that this whole ordeal gets hairy quickly. And in practice, I only ever see `std::`. And not only does it give off horrible noise in the code, in my mind I think "this data structure is probably not optimal". "This algorithm is probably not optimal".

steerablesafe 5y ago
Most data structures in a project are not performance bottlenecks, so that's alright. While there are much better hash table implementations, std::unordered_map is still usable, although not great.
jcelerier 5y ago
> Any C++ code I have ever worked with is littered with `std::`. Replacing all that with `otherlib::` would be a herculean effort at best. You might be tempted to do a simple search and replace, but let's say there's also instances of `mystd::` (probably rare). Or perhaps you don't want _all_ `std::` to be replaced. Anyway, my point is that this whole ordeal gets hairy quickly. replacing a std::type by a semi-equivalent non-std::one has never taken more than a few minutes with my IDE's find-and-replace, on up to MLOC-codebases.
72deluxe 5y ago
What about putting using std::vector or whatever in the header or implementation? Saves littering the codebase with std:: everywhere without having to do a blanket using namespace std;
physicsguy 5y ago
If I as a C++ dev come to a new project, I'd much rather that someone was using std::vector or std::array or std::unordered_map or whatever other container because I know how it works, and I know that any other new developer will know how it works. Personally, I would expect very heavy justification (incl. profiling results showing orders of magnitude differences in total task performance) and a very strongly tested + well documented implementation for anyone sending me a PR with their own implementation of a container.

steerablesafe 5y ago

Most data structures in a project are not performance bottlenecks, so that's alright. While there are much better hash table implementations, std::unordered_map is still usable, although not great.

jcelerier 5y ago

> Any C++ code I have ever worked with is littered with `std::`. Replacing all that with `otherlib::` would be a herculean effort at best. You might be tempted to do a simple search and replace, but let's say there's also instances of `mystd::` (probably rare). Or perhaps you don't want _all_ `std::` to be replaced. Anyway, my point is that this whole ordeal gets hairy quickly. replacing a std::type by a semi-equivalent non-std::one has never taken more than a few minutes with my IDE's find-and-replace, on up to MLOC-codebases.

72deluxe 5y ago

What about putting using std::vector or whatever in the header or implementation? Saves littering the codebase with std:: everywhere without having to do a blanket using namespace std;

physicsguy 5y ago

If I as a C++ dev come to a new project, I'd much rather that someone was using std::vector or std::array or std::unordered_map or whatever other container because I know how it works, and I know that any other new developer will know how it works. Personally, I would expect very heavy justification (incl. profiling results showing orders of magnitude differences in total task performance) and a very strongly tested + well documented implementation for anyone sending me a PR with their own implementation of a container.