3 ms·
Sure, after brushing up on this "stb style", then I see what you mean. Still, it seems like an ugly kludge to cope with a breathtakingly antiquated way of doin
by titzer 5y ago
Sure, after brushing up on this "stb style", then I see what you mean.
Still, it seems like an ugly kludge to cope with a breathtakingly antiquated way of doing things.
- sledgehammers 5y agoWhy should it be any more complicated than that? What ever happened to keeping it simple?
- titzer 5y agoThings can be locally simple but have complex and chaotic implications. E.g. just by pushing the complexity up a level and dumping it on literally everyone else. I've learned over the years that complexity sometimes has a right place and a wrong place. (Most times complexity ends up everywhere, TBH.) I think resolving references between different parts of code in different compilation units is definitely within the purview of a compiler/build system, and should not be up to every programmer to flail at poorly with #ifdefs.
- flohofwoe 5y ago> with a breathtakingly antiquated way of doing things. I think it's mainly a fix/workaround for the breathtakingly antiquated build systems in the C/C++ world ;) In the end, STB-style single-header vs. a single .h/.c pair is not all that different, both are equally straightforward to integrate into a project. The actual problem are libraries made of dozens/hundreds/thousands of header and source files and coming with their own complex build system setup.