4 ms·
>> 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
by 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 agoPost 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++.