4 ms·
The whole time I was reading this I couldn't help think of all the "ported x to 30 lines of javascript" headlines. By that I mean, just because it can be done i
by film42 13y ago
The whole time I was reading this I couldn't help think of all the "ported x to 30 lines of javascript" headlines. By that I mean, just because it can be done in a language, doesn't mean it's the best fit.
I think his best point was about dropping in boost. It doesn't make sense to add more code, increase compile times, and complicated stack traces just to use C++. I have to admit, I go out of my way to use newer tech sometimes even though I know it'll slow me down. But, we (I) need to remember something about Software Engineering -- at the bottom line, we're building software. Its language and design should reflect the best possible result, and while that doesn't always mean speed, it does mean using the best tools to solve that problem.
- eropple 13y agoWhen using modern compilers, the overhead for Boost is pretty minor. I get that this was a big deal some time ago (I wasn't using C++ then, so I can't say myself) but using Boost with clang and precompiled headers don't cause a significant increase in compile times except in the case of a clean, which is rare enough for me that I just use that as a chance to get up, move around, etc. Boost can weird your stack traces a little, but they exhibit in predictable ways that you can usually quickly reason out if you understand what your stuff is doing.