2 ms·
Just don't use "legacy parts" and be happy. Backwards compatibility is a great asset. Alternatively do something like Google's Carbon. Seems like a great produc
by FpUser 3y ago
Just don't use "legacy parts" and be happy. Backwards compatibility is a great asset. Alternatively do something like Google's Carbon. Seems like a great product. Just do not call it C++. If it gets accepted by wider community you would know you are on the right path.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- CoastalCoder 3y ago> Just don't use "legacy parts" and be happy. Maybe that works for some new codebases. When you need to integrate with other code, you can't necessarily understand the code semantics without knowing a lot more of the spec. Also, I challenge any normal programmer to remember all of the "good" C++ rules regarding overload resolution in an arbitrary context.
- FpUser 3y ago>"When you need to integrate with other code, you can't necessarily understand the code semantics without knowing a lot more of the spec." I mostly design and create new products but on some occasions I've had situations like this. There was not a single time that quick Google search and now ChatGPT did not shed the light. >"Also, I challenge any normal programmer to remember all of the "good" C++ rules regarding overload resolution in an arbitrary context." Knowing / remembering every nook and cranny does not make for a good programmer (except language experts who write standard libraries and design / implement language itself of course). There are way more important things to consider.
- stjohnswarts 3y agoLuckily I'm only working on those code bases so I don't care if it causes other programmers' heartache. If you don't like your code base, then I swear it's never been easier to find a job on newer code bases.