3 ms·

That’s just adding another layer of abstraction over exactly what the Mac case does. I prefer code that is so simple it doesn’t need to be abstract, as every ab

by jakear 5y ago

That’s just adding another layer of abstraction over exactly what the Mac case does. I prefer code that is so simple it doesn’t need to be abstract, as every abstraction layer is a potential bug layer. Not even just “potential” in QT’s case, a quick search turned up https://forum.qt.io/topic/31071/moc-and-qt_version_check-bug https://forum.qt.io/topic/31071/moc-and-qt_version_check-bug and https://forum.qt.io/topic/37882/qt-4-8-qt_version_check-and-moc-workaround https://forum.qt.io/topic/37882/qt-4-8-qt_version_check-and-... as cases where folks have been bit by some tooling in a Qt4 environment not understanding the macro properly.

cute_boi 5y ago
Windows Version check would disagree with you why this abstraction is required. I forgot the api but there is kernel api that will contradict with your view points.
jcelerier 5y ago
> That’s just adding another layer of abstraction over exactly what the Mac case does. I prefer code that is so simple it doesn’t need to be abstract, as every abstraction layer is a potential bug layer. I'm happy for you if you never typed 10150 or 01150 instead of 101500 or whatever but that's definitely not my case and I need any tool that the programming language provides to help me with that ; version macros are unambiguous and I don't remember fucking one up.
- saagarjha 5y ago
  In C23 you can type it as 10'15'00 if you’d like.
- jakear 5y ago
  Surely you see the contradiction in the system you describe as `terrible` being the exact same as the system you call `good`? In either case, macros are available in modern versions but attempting to use them in old versions causes problems (see the links above), so the practice is to not use them at all, if you may have to target older versions.
  - jcelerier 5y ago
    > Surely you see the contradiction in the system you describe as `terrible` being the exact same as the system you call `good`? how is it the exact same ? Where is the generic MACOS_VERSION(sane, version, numbers) where MACOS_VERSION(11, 3, 0) also compiles on the macos 10.7 SDK ?
    - jakear 5y ago
      Just… write the macro? I don’t see the problem.

by jakear 5y ago

cute_boi 5y ago

Windows Version check would disagree with you why this abstraction is required. I forgot the api but there is kernel api that will contradict with your view points.

jcelerier 5y ago

> That’s just adding another layer of abstraction over exactly what the Mac case does. I prefer code that is so simple it doesn’t need to be abstract, as every abstraction layer is a potential bug layer. I'm happy for you if you never typed 10150 or 01150 instead of 101500 or whatever but that's definitely not my case and I need any tool that the programming language provides to help me with that ; version macros are unambiguous and I don't remember fucking one up.

saagarjha 5y ago
In C23 you can type it as 10'15'00 if you’d like.
jakear 5y ago
Surely you see the contradiction in the system you describe as `terrible` being the exact same as the system you call `good`? In either case, macros are available in modern versions but attempting to use them in old versions causes problems (see the links above), so the practice is to not use them at all, if you may have to target older versions.
- jcelerier 5y ago
  > Surely you see the contradiction in the system you describe as `terrible` being the exact same as the system you call `good`? how is it the exact same ? Where is the generic MACOS_VERSION(sane, version, numbers) where MACOS_VERSION(11, 3, 0) also compiles on the macos 10.7 SDK ?
  - jakear 5y ago
    Just… write the macro? I don’t see the problem.