4 ms·

> nonsense ... not wrong So it's not nonsense? I think GP clearly laid out the base principles that lead to emergent complexity . GP calls this "coincidence"

> nonsense ... not wrong So it's not nonsense? I think GP clearly laid out the base principles that lead to emergent complexity . GP calls this "coincidence" to convey the feeling of lots of complexity just narrowly avoiding catastrophe in a process that is hard to grok for someone getting into C++. GP also gave some scenarios in which the rule of 0 no longer applies and you now simply have to follow some other rule. "just follow the rule" is not very intuitive advice. The rule may be simple to follow but the foundations on which it rests are pretty complicated, which makes the entire rule complicated in my worldview and also that of GP. In your view, the rule is easy to follow therefore simple. Let's agree to disagree on that. Again, being told "you need to just follow this arbitrary rule to fix all these sudden compiler errors" doesn't inspire confidence in ones code, hence (I think) the usage of "coincidence". If I were using such a language, I'd certainly feel a bit nervous and unsure.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
astrobe_ 2y ago
> GP calls this "coincidence" to convey the feeling of lots of complexity just narrowly avoiding catastrophe in a process that is hard to grok for someone getting into C++ I think that's what they said themselves: >> It all makes absolutely sense if you are mindful of the design requirements. But if you just start to onboard onto C++ and barely know what a copy constructors is, all these aspects are arcane and sadistic IMO not knowing why something works (in any language) is an unpleasant feeling. Then if you have the chance you can look under the hood, read things - it's exactly why I'm reading this thread - and little by little get a better understanding. That's called gaining experience. > Again, being told "you need to just follow this arbitrary rule to fix all these sudden compiler errors" doesn't inspire confidence in ones code, hence (I think) the usage of "coincidence" That's exactly what other languages like Haskell or Rust are praised for. Why does C++ receive a different treatment when it tries to do the same thing instead of crashing on you at runtime, for once?
- marcosdumay 2y ago
  > That's exactly what other languages like Haskell or Rust are praised for. You making a trivial change, and suddenly there are entire new classes of bugs all over your code is an aspect that does really not receive any praise. People using those two languages work hard on avoiding that situation, and it clearly feels like a failure when it happens. The part about pointing problems at compile time so the developer will know it sooner is great. And I imagine is the part you are talking about. But the GP was talking about the other part of the issue.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

astrobe_ 2y ago

> GP calls this "coincidence" to convey the feeling of lots of complexity just narrowly avoiding catastrophe in a process that is hard to grok for someone getting into C++ I think that's what they said themselves: >> It all makes absolutely sense if you are mindful of the design requirements. But if you just start to onboard onto C++ and barely know what a copy constructors is, all these aspects are arcane and sadistic IMO not knowing why something works (in any language) is an unpleasant feeling. Then if you have the chance you can look under the hood, read things - it's exactly why I'm reading this thread - and little by little get a better understanding. That's called gaining experience. > Again, being told "you need to just follow this arbitrary rule to fix all these sudden compiler errors" doesn't inspire confidence in ones code, hence (I think) the usage of "coincidence" That's exactly what other languages like Haskell or Rust are praised for. Why does C++ receive a different treatment when it tries to do the same thing instead of crashing on you at runtime, for once?

marcosdumay 2y ago
> That's exactly what other languages like Haskell or Rust are praised for. You making a trivial change, and suddenly there are entire new classes of bugs all over your code is an aspect that does really not receive any praise. People using those two languages work hard on avoiding that situation, and it clearly feels like a failure when it happens. The part about pointing problems at compile time so the developer will know it sooner is great. And I imagine is the part you are talking about. But the GP was talking about the other part of the issue.