SuperV1234

14 ms·

151.
by SuperV1234 4y ago
Have you actually read the book? There's barely any "filler". Cutting it down to 200 pages would mean sacrificing a massive amount of useful content.
152.
by SuperV1234 4y ago
It is now obvious you have no intention of discussing the technical merits or drawbacks of the material in the book. It is also obvious you hold a grudge against Lakos and/or Bloomberg for whatever reason. Guess your crusade of spammin
153.
by SuperV1234 4y ago
This comment seems a bit intellectually dishonest to me -- as an author the review was really useful to pinpoint improvements for future editions. The author of the review also clearly states that the book was read and provides an unique op
154.
by SuperV1234 4y ago
'final' only partly relates to virtual functions, you are forgetting or ignoring the use of 'final' on classes. Also, 'virtual' functions are extremely useful to define interfaces that separate teams can implem
155.
by SuperV1234 4y ago
Hi, I'm one of the authors. "Unsafe" has a very specific meaning in our book -- it doesn't refer to security or to the fact to a feature is inherently bad. It means that the cost/reward ratio of teaching a certain f
156.
by SuperV1234 4y ago
Hey, you seem to have posted variations of this comment over and over again, without providing any substance to your claims. Could you please explain why you believe that this book is not needed by anyone? Especially when it was reviewed an
157.
by SuperV1234 4y ago
Hi! This book is not targeting Bloomberg employees only, it is written for the broad audience of C++ developers who have previously used modern standards, or C++03 developers that want to learn C++11/14 in an effective and safe way. Wo
158.
by SuperV1234 4y ago
The review states the exact opposite.
159.
by SuperV1234 4y ago
I can assure you that most (if not all) C++11/14 developers that have some prior experience with those standards will find our book useful in various possible ways. If you don't want to take my word for it, check out the acknowled
160.
by SuperV1234 4y ago
If you had spent a few minutes reading the meaning of "unsafe" in the book's first chapter (freely available), you would know exactly what we mean by "unsafe", which is far from the misinformation you're spread
161.
by SuperV1234 4y ago
Hi, I'm one of the authors of the book. Our analysis of C++11/14 features aims to be as objective as possible. Could you please provide any example of what you consider "superstition"? Keep in mind that the book was heav
162.
by SuperV1234 4y ago
Somewhat tangential, but Andrei Alexandrescu was fundamental for this book -- he reviewed the entirety of it, providing a lot of suggestions and improvements, and also helped write a few sections :)
163.
by SuperV1234 5y ago
Good point! I wanted to be able to modify SEED in order to test that everything was fine with multiple words, using __DATE__ didn't come to mind :)
164.
Wordlexpr – compile-time Wordle in C++20(vittorioromeo.info)
2 points by SuperV1234 5y ago|0 comments
165.
by SuperV1234 11y ago
Author of the talk here - glad you liked it! Replying to pretty much everyone: what Bjarne and others were strongly against was the first static_if proposal, which was a glorified #ifdef and broke scope rules. The newest constexpr_if propos