You can't make C++ not ugly, but you can't not try (2010)

Re:You can't make C++ not ugly, but you can't not try (2010) by Espressosaurus on Thursday February 27, 2020 @12:08AM (#22430686)

Because that way you don't need to haul in dependencies unless you have a real reason.

std::function is fine for prototyping, but its size hit is extreme, so in embedded code we use other implementations. But where size and speed doesn't matter? Why bother?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:You can't make C++ not ugly, but you can't not try (2010) by kllrnohj on Thursday February 27, 2020 @02:51AM (#22431483)

> Because that way you don't need to haul in dependencies unless you have a real reason.

These are all largely header libraries. You're already hauling in a dependency, and in every c++ file that uses it at that.

> std::function is fine for prototyping

std::function isn't part of the containers library of the STL (containers being all the stuff here: https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container ). I agree std::function is fine, it even has a pretty reasonable small-size optimization.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:You can't make C++ not ugly, but you can't not try (2010) by mbeex on Thursday February 27, 2020 @04:35AM (#22431912)

> These are all largely header libraries.

That's not even true for boost, no matter if they always advertise that. The lib is also notorious for bad decomposability (using only a subset without installing the whole monster). Not to speak about idiosyncratic naming and build system, making it sometimes hard to include it in meta builds of other libraries and frameworks.

In sum: Anyone sensible, regarding different kinds of footprint and dependencies will think twice, before pulling in these kind of libraries.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:You can't make C++ not ugly, but you can't not try (2010) by gpderetta on Friday February 28, 2020 @06:39AM (#22442100)

boost does not advertise being an header only library. Some boost libraries are header only, some offer hybrid modes, some require a library to be linked in. Each case is documented individually.

Boost is better thought as a loose collection of libraries that try to follow some common design principles instead of a single monolithic library.

I can't defend the build system though.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:You can't make C++ not ugly, but you can't not try (2010) by fctorial on Thursday February 27, 2020 @02:16AM (#22431352)

I'll use java where size and speed doesn't matter.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:You can't make C++ not ugly, but you can't not try (2010) by pjmlp on Thursday February 27, 2020 @02:32AM (#22431418)

I rather have my phone be fast, without the apps taking ages to download.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:You can't make C++ not ugly, but you can't not try (2010) by fctorial on Thursday February 27, 2020 @04:10AM (#22431800)

Java apps are actually pretty small in size. It's the assets that make take up the most space, and that is independent of language.

App installation is a one time cost anyways. Did you mean s/download/startup/?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:You can't make C++ not ugly, but you can't not try (2010) by pjmlp on Thursday February 27, 2020 @05:08AM (#22432042)

I was giving a counter argument in a very not intelligent way.

Being a polyglot developer, with Java, .NET and C++ as my favourite stacks, means I don't suffer from Java hate from C++ point of view, rather enjoy how one can combine their strengths to achieve a good outcome.

[ Parent | on HN ]