3 ms·
Don't appreciate your tone. Relax buddy, it's Friday. I'm arguing for introducing thin abstractions over the underlying API to handle lifetime issues, and enca
by mattgreenrocks 13y ago
Don't appreciate your tone. Relax buddy, it's Friday.
I'm arguing for introducing thin abstractions over the underlying API to handle lifetime issues, and encapsulate icky, SDL-specific details and types as they arise.
They are definitely redundant with unique_ptr. In return, they're higher-level and more abstract. It's up to the developer to select what level they need to be at. I favor abstraction and readability, others may not.
- masklinn 13y ago> Don't appreciate your tone. Relax buddy, it's Friday. Wow, sorry, I didn't know you were an internet badass, that changes everything. As for relaxing, have you considered taking your own advice? > I'm arguing for introducing thin abstractions over the underlying API to handle lifetime issues, and encapsulate icky, SDL-specific details and types as they arise. Yes, now that you point it out I can certainly see a careful balancing of the tradeoffs between having to maintain custom code versus the ability to create more extended abstractions in your summary declaration that unique_ptr is hard to read, hard to use and not RAII.
- dang 13y agoThe comment you responded to was indeed inappropriately irritating. But please don't respond to incivility with more incivility on HN. It's hard not to, but it only makes things worse.