3 ms·
Well IIRC it was a tempting way to replace for-loops with direct list operations ala Python, Ruby etc. But the amount of syntactic noise and cognitive load see
by asher 15y ago
Well IIRC it was a tempting way to replace for-loops with direct list operations ala Python, Ruby etc. But the amount of syntactic noise and cognitive load seemed too much for the added leverage.
Our code had sufficient complexity that I didn't want one more oddity (as many would see it) to explain.
But for a small team, or a team that's all on the same page, maybe it's good.
Sorry to say there's no dramatic story of code explosion here!
- FooBarWidget 15y agoI wouldn't use it for for-loops either, but man, boost::bind is so handy when compiled with boost::function! I used to use function pointers and 'void *userData'. If I wanted to pass additional data to the function then I have to allocate a structure and not forgetting to free it later which resulted in a lot of boilerplate code.