5 ms·
I personally enjoyed reading the FQA, and even learned about some C++ "subtleties" in the process. I note however that the FQA itself has its share of criticism
by loup-vaillant 15y ago
I personally enjoyed reading the FQA, and even learned about some C++ "subtleties" in the process. I note however that the FQA itself has its share of criticism. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3171647/errors-in-c-fqa http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3171647/errors-in-c-fqa
- JoachimSchipper 15y agoWhen reading this rebuttal, keep in mind that it was written in 2010 while the FQA was written starting in 2007, and apparently based on the author's experiences with much older tools. All other things aside, if your compiler frequently miscompiles templates, using them is probably not a good idea.
- loup-vaillant 15y agoI agree. Also, C++11 probably makes a good deal of the FQA less relevant (except with regards to the sheer complexity of the language). Also, I still agree with the basic premise of the FQA: for the majority of new projects where C++ is used, C++ is not the best tool for the job (not taking into account programmer expertise, though even then…).