5 ms·

I love how over the past decade my own C++ utility library has been continuously shrinking because with each update there are more and more utility functions (l

by stinos 4y ago

I love how over the past decade my own C++ utility library has been continuously shrinking because with each update there are more and more utility functions (like the to_underlying this article mentions) and even complete libraries (like <filesystem>) which replace self-written or 3rd party code.

gpderetta 4y ago
I always worry as much as anyone else on each new release for the additional complexity ("the committee is out of control!!!!1!!eleven!"), but on each compiler upgrade when I actually get to use the new versions of the standard I'm always pleasantly surprised about all the little low-key quality of life improvements.
- einpoklum 4y ago
  While that's true, when you get to a point where you have to write a small library - so that you need to cater to all of the language and standard additions - that's when you start experiencing pain. How do I expose the right iterators and sentinels? What do I have to specialize? Do I need to define concepts? Do I need to use concepts from elsewhere? I am often at a loss...
  - legends2k 4y ago
    While this is true to some extent, trying to be overly generic and solving for all cases is the root of the analysis-parslysis. I end up solving just the part that's needed for the problem in hand but accepting meaningful compromises and trade offs when faced with this issue.
    - gpderetta 4y ago
      Premature generalisation is the root of all evil. According to Stepanov generalisation is something you are supposed to discover as you develop a program, not something you do from first principles.
      - einpoklum 4y ago
        That may be relevant when you're writing a program. When you're writing a _library_, the "discovery" has already happened. But you can't just use the minimum level of generalization useful for your own program(s), you need to consider the conceivable needs of fellow programmers.

by stinos 4y ago

gpderetta 4y ago

I always worry as much as anyone else on each new release for the additional complexity ("the committee is out of control!!!!1!!eleven!"), but on each compiler upgrade when I actually get to use the new versions of the standard I'm always pleasantly surprised about all the little low-key quality of life improvements.

einpoklum 4y ago
While that's true, when you get to a point where you have to write a small library - so that you need to cater to all of the language and standard additions - that's when you start experiencing pain. How do I expose the right iterators and sentinels? What do I have to specialize? Do I need to define concepts? Do I need to use concepts from elsewhere? I am often at a loss...
- legends2k 4y ago
  While this is true to some extent, trying to be overly generic and solving for all cases is the root of the analysis-parslysis. I end up solving just the part that's needed for the problem in hand but accepting meaningful compromises and trade offs when faced with this issue.
  - gpderetta 4y ago
    Premature generalisation is the root of all evil. According to Stepanov generalisation is something you are supposed to discover as you develop a program, not something you do from first principles.
    - einpoklum 4y ago
      That may be relevant when you're writing a program. When you're writing a _library_, the "discovery" has already happened. But you can't just use the minimum level of generalization useful for your own program(s), you need to consider the conceivable needs of fellow programmers.