4 ms·
I feel like with a lot of languages this is true - it's pretty easy to pick up Python if you know Ruby (and vice-versa) for example. But with C++... there's jus
by UncleOxidant 3y ago
I feel like with a lot of languages this is true - it's pretty easy to pick up Python if you know Ruby (and vice-versa) for example. But with C++... there's just so much complexity now and still so many footguns. Hiring C++ devs familiar with modern C++ (C++11 and beyond) is probably not easy. I've done a good bit of C++ in the past (prior to C++11) and I've done a bit of modern C++, but when a job ad lists C++17+ I'm really hesitant to apply. It's a whole different beast than it was 15 years ago.
- JohnFen 3y ago> when a job ad lists C++17+ I'm really hesitant to apply. While I've actively worked in many languages, C++ has been the bulk of my experience. And I am the same way. I can certainly work with C++17+, but I have learned that I dislike it strongly enough that I don't consider such jobs at all.
- UncleOxidant 3y agoI like some aspects of C++17+ - the addition of functional programming, for example. But the standard library is now huge (more huge than before). I follow a C++ programming substack that puts out a daily dose of modern C++ and tbh it's just overwhelming after a while - how is anyone supposed to remember all of that?