2 ms·
I don’t think that’s quite right. I haven’t written C++ since the 90s, and I use IDEs (Emacs and Zed), but I still sometimes reach a mental threshold where I lo
by kstrauser 1y ago
I don’t think that’s quite right. I haven’t written C++ since the 90s, and I use IDEs (Emacs and Zed), but I still sometimes reach a mental threshold where I look at my screen and see way too many names to have to hold in my mental buffer, then decide to make them more explicit.
- cogman10 1y agoIDK what the state of Emac/Zed is in terms of type information (I'm sure it depends on the language in question). For Jetbrains/Eclipse/Netbeans if there's a question about a type you can ctrl+click on the type and immediately pull all information about it. In java, I rarely pay attention to the `import` section (and I know most devs at my company). You can look up `using namespace std;` in google and you'll find a lot of articles saying it's a bad practice in C++. Everyone recommends writing the full `std::cout` rather than `cout`.
- kstrauser 1y agoAll modern editors do that pretty well with language servers now. Specifically, Emacs and Zed do this perfectly with Rust. I do think it’s down to personal preference. With the fully qualified names, I can look at the screen and follow the flow without having to mouse over the various names in play. For that matter, I could print it out if I wanted to and still have all the information. I don’t think you’re objectively wrong. It’s more that we have different approaches to managing the complexity when it gets hairy.