3 ms·
The book reviewed is essentially backward-looking. It treats C++11 and newer features as inherently suspect. Its suspicions of newer features are based on supe
by ncmncm 4y ago
The book reviewed is essentially backward-looking. It treats C++11 and newer features as inherently suspect. Its suspicions of newer features are based on superstition. You should not buy or pay attention to recommendations in this book unless obliged by employment at Bloomberg, and often not then.
The book covers only up to C++14 because that is the latest Standard that Bloomberg has managed to field. They got to use C++11 only a couple of years back. Code written at Bloomberg is not, as a rule, good code. The BDE library much (but not all) Bloomberg code relies on is, while nominally open source, not used outside Bloomberg, for reasons. (When BDE group were directed to start reviewing outside pull requests, all discussion was of how to find time to reject whatever might come up. They need not have worried.)
This is not a good book unless what you need is a doorstop.
- SuperV1234 4y agoHi, I'm one of the authors of the book. Our analysis of C++11/14 features aims to be as objective as possible. Could you please provide any example of what you consider "superstition"? Keep in mind that the book was heavily reviewed by multiple members of the ISO committee and experienced developers such as Andrei Alexandrescu, Sean Parent, Nina Ranns, Alisdair Meredith, and more. There's zero chance that "superstition" would have made it true their review, and I'm eager to see what you come up with :) Your post is also spreading falsehood. Bloomberg has been using C++17 for several years already, and many teams nowadays use C++20 and even C++23 features. We target C++14 because we find it intellectually dishonest to claim to know the best use cases and pitfalls for features unless we have had multiple years of experience with them in the real world. Your opinion seems quite biased, I take it that possibly you had some bad experiences at Bloomberg, which can happen as in any other large company. Still, I'd be happy to hear your feedback and improve the book if you provide some concrete examples of "superstition".
- ncmncm 4y agoI remember when this book was a 12-page polemic vainly ginning up arguments for limiting use of any language features newer than C++03. I thought it had been rightfully abandoned. Instead it hypertrophied as all Lakos work does. Anything starting from that premise was bound to lead nowhere good. The 1300-page size will anyway help limit its influence, just as has the gross inflation of Lakos's other output.
- SuperV1234 4y agoIt is now obvious you have no intention of discussing the technical merits or drawbacks of the material in the book. It is also obvious you hold a grudge against Lakos and/or Bloomberg for whatever reason. Guess your crusade of spamming "please don't buy this book" without providing any concrete arguments is the way you present your grudge to the world. Well, if you ever change your mind and intend on providing constructive feedback, feel free to let me know. I'm also happy to have a call and discuss what could be improved in the book for future editions. Cheers.
- ncmncm 4y agoCutting it to 200 pages, discarding the filler, would be a good start. Nobody needs a grudge against Lakos, he generates his own opposition. (You know it is true.)
- SuperV1234 4y agoHave you actually read the book? There's barely any "filler". Cutting it down to 200 pages would mean sacrificing a massive amount of useful content.