3 ms·

Same. I and a couple of my colleagues got offers. Regarding love of complexity and C++, they’re sitting on the C++ committee. Complexity is their bread and but

Same. I and a couple of my colleagues got offers. Regarding love of complexity and C++, they’re sitting on the C++ committee. Complexity is their bread and butter. :) I also kinda doubt “Trillion dollar ultra low latency / high throughput high frequency trading/AAA+ games running on 4 x 4k monitors at 200+ fps” people are such enthusiasts of the bleeding-edge of C++. The standard library and the style of programming popular in the committee isn’t very concerned with high performance it seems.

chipdart 2y ago
> Regarding love of complexity and C++, they’re sitting on the C++ committee. Complexity is their bread and butter. :) To me the think-cell guys sound like they are gung-ho on clout-chasing, to the point that this side of theirs even eclipses their own products and services. It sounds they got the whole point of software engineering entirely backwards: their goal is to pile complex tech showcases in their product line and presentations as a proxy to being competent in their field,and instead they unwittingly put together unmaintainable and convoluted code that requires a high cognitive load just to troubleshoot the simplest issues.
AnonSixOneTh 2y ago
>> Regarding love of complexity and C++, they’re sitting on the C++ committee. Complexity is their bread and butter. :) Wow, I didn't know that, it explains a lot. There was a post on HN a while ago titled '“Modern” C++ Lamentations' (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29898955 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29898955). My eyes bleed when I see that "N Pythagorean triples" program in "C++". That's as close to classic C++ as Chinese is to Latin. And it's barely 10+ years since 2011. At this rate I don't even dare think what the "Modernest C++" of 2034 will look like, given the incentives the committee guys run on. If programming was done with pen and paper, I'd bet on making us stick a pen in our ass and write with that. Either way I'm expecting some equivalent proctology intervention needed to comply with the standard 10 years from now.
- foonathan 2y ago
  Post author here. To be fair, we specifically don't use std::ranges because of that "N Pythagorean triple" problem. We have our own custom library that is vastly superior to std::ranges. See e.g. here for context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7ntC-Y1syY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7ntC-Y1syY I was recently appointed co-chair for the std::ranges group and I'm trying to bring some of the improvements to C++.

chipdart 2y ago

> Regarding love of complexity and C++, they’re sitting on the C++ committee. Complexity is their bread and butter. :) To me the think-cell guys sound like they are gung-ho on clout-chasing, to the point that this side of theirs even eclipses their own products and services. It sounds they got the whole point of software engineering entirely backwards: their goal is to pile complex tech showcases in their product line and presentations as a proxy to being competent in their field,and instead they unwittingly put together unmaintainable and convoluted code that requires a high cognitive load just to troubleshoot the simplest issues.

AnonSixOneTh 2y ago

>> Regarding love of complexity and C++, they’re sitting on the C++ committee. Complexity is their bread and butter. :) Wow, I didn't know that, it explains a lot. There was a post on HN a while ago titled '“Modern” C++ Lamentations' (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29898955 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29898955). My eyes bleed when I see that "N Pythagorean triples" program in "C++". That's as close to classic C++ as Chinese is to Latin. And it's barely 10+ years since 2011. At this rate I don't even dare think what the "Modernest C++" of 2034 will look like, given the incentives the committee guys run on. If programming was done with pen and paper, I'd bet on making us stick a pen in our ass and write with that. Either way I'm expecting some equivalent proctology intervention needed to comply with the standard 10 years from now.

foonathan 2y ago
Post author here. To be fair, we specifically don't use std::ranges because of that "N Pythagorean triple" problem. We have our own custom library that is vastly superior to std::ranges. See e.g. here for context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7ntC-Y1syY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7ntC-Y1syY I was recently appointed co-chair for the std::ranges group and I'm trying to bring some of the improvements to C++.