4 ms·

His past C++ projects (or lack thereof) do not tell much about the quality of his books. He teaches people how to master C++, and that's a very precise skill. H

by pikma 11y ago

His past C++ projects (or lack thereof) do not tell much about the quality of his books. He teaches people how to master C++, and that's a very precise skill. He doesn't claim to teach how to organize software, or how to manage collaboration between people, or any of the other skills that are necessary for a successful software project. It's the same way that good grammar is only one of the skills involved in writing a great novel. Some scholars really grok grammar, and are excellent at teaching it, yet they haven't written great novels. I'm thinking of William Strunk Jr (of "The Elements of Style" fame), for example.

millstone 11y ago
His book is titled "Effective Modern C++," which necessarily contains opinions about what is effective and what is modern. Without practical experience writing software, his opinions won't be grounded, and so his advice won't be sound. That said, I think he does a good job being even-handed. For example, his chapter on auto covers both advantages and pathological cases, and goes on to say: First, take a deep breath and relax. auto is an option, not a mandate. If, in your professional judgment, your code will be clearer or more maintainable or in some other way better by using explicit type declarations, you’re free to continue using them. But bear in mind that C++ breaks no new ground in adopting what is generally known in the programming languages world as type inference. So he is not excessively proscriptive.
lambda 11y ago
> Some scholars really grok grammar, and are excellent at teaching it, yet they haven't written great novels. I'm thinking of William Strunk Jr (of "The Elements of Style" fame), for example. Not sure that Strunk, or the successor Strunk and White, are good examples here; they didn't "really grok grammar", in fact, they were pretty bad at both understanding it and teaching it, and their advice consists of a lot of incorrect information and vague platitudes. E. B. White was actually a good writer, but much of his writing violates the prescriptions in The Elements of Style. Geoff Pullum has a good rant on the subject, if you want more detail: https://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/25497 https://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/254... So, this is exactly why it's an interesting question to test if the suggestions in the "Effective C++" series are actually good suggestions, or are just someone expounding rules that sound good in theory but don't actually help in practice.

by pikma 11y ago

millstone 11y ago

His book is titled "Effective Modern C++," which necessarily contains opinions about what is effective and what is modern. Without practical experience writing software, his opinions won't be grounded, and so his advice won't be sound. That said, I think he does a good job being even-handed. For example, his chapter on auto covers both advantages and pathological cases, and goes on to say: First, take a deep breath and relax. auto is an option, not a mandate. If, in your professional judgment, your code will be clearer or more maintainable or in some other way better by using explicit type declarations, you’re free to continue using them. But bear in mind that C++ breaks no new ground in adopting what is generally known in the programming languages world as type inference. So he is not excessively proscriptive.

lambda 11y ago

> Some scholars really grok grammar, and are excellent at teaching it, yet they haven't written great novels. I'm thinking of William Strunk Jr (of "The Elements of Style" fame), for example. Not sure that Strunk, or the successor Strunk and White, are good examples here; they didn't "really grok grammar", in fact, they were pretty bad at both understanding it and teaching it, and their advice consists of a lot of incorrect information and vague platitudes. E. B. White was actually a good writer, but much of his writing violates the prescriptions in The Elements of Style. Geoff Pullum has a good rant on the subject, if you want more detail: https://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/25497 https://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/254... So, this is exactly why it's an interesting question to test if the suggestions in the "Effective C++" series are actually good suggestions, or are just someone expounding rules that sound good in theory but don't actually help in practice.