3 ms·
I agree that dev tooling improvement has been a huge theme of the past decade, but the premise that it’s exclusive to new languages is flawed. I’m a a C++ devel
by jonstewart 3y ago
I agree that dev tooling improvement has been a huge theme of the past decade, but the premise that it’s exclusive to new languages is flawed. I’m a a C++ developer and it has fantastic tooling these days: clang-format, the static analyzer, VSCode & VisualStudio, gdb & lldb, conan, godbolt, etc.
Being stuck in an old legacy codebase may be hell, and may not be — that seems independent of language, though. But writing C++ with new standards, libraries, and tools is a joy.
- the-smug-one 3y agoI'm a C++ dev also, and I don't agree with you! I use clangd, gdb, dynamic analysis tools, no static analysis tools (other than compiler warnings). The help I've gotten from Rust analyzer compared to clangd is pretty large, imho. Rust restraining itself means that our tooling gets to be more free. Also, gdb is... Not that great. Yes, it definitely does debug my app and in that sense it is great. It is however pretty unstable and gets into weird state I cannot get out of, gdb/mi is a mess, and the text interface (TUI) is not performant enough. I'm still very happy that I have it, but when I look at RemedyBG I get jealous. I'd pay for an equivalent to RemedyBG on Linux, if it was FOSS.
- jll29 3y agoIt is true that writing modern C++ is much more fun than writing old C++ in the old days. The code also _looks_ better than in the old days, too, but still far from pretty.