4 ms·
sure, well, it's not subjective if you have to type more characters to basically achieve the same thing. I guess I just don't really understand why you have to
by vasilipupkin 4y ago
sure, well, it's not subjective if you have to type more characters to basically achieve the same thing. I guess I just don't really understand why you have to fix C++ shortcomings while also changing things that work fine. Is there a C++ developer who is having trouble declaring variables as int x?
By making big changes to syntax, you are just making it less likely this ever gets truly adopted.
- runevault 4y agoA language with good type inference lets you type less because you don't need the colon or the type, where as a language with it first you always have to type something like var for a "figure it out" type.
- aardvark179 4y agoSimple types may be easier, complex types are a real pain for both humans and compilers, and they end up hiding the name in the middle of the thing. Brevity is neither the only nor most important thing on which to judge syntax.
- duped 4y agoauto + implicit coercion + pass by value semantics and copy constructors create real bugs and pitfalls in C++ code. Avoiding these semantics and deferring to explicit syntax leads to better code. Optimizing for character count is dead.
- int_19h 4y agoSomething like "int* a, b" not doing what people expect it to do is a very common C++ footgun.