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 gpderetta on Thursday February 27, 2020 @05:04AM (#22432028)

> Containers still do silly things when you use `c[..]` syntax with no element there. (Both when trying to insert and when trying to retrieve!)

FWIW, I find std::map operator[] creating an object extremely convenient and it is very annoying having to use defaultdict to get the same behavior [edit: in python]. So ugliness really depends on what you are used to.

> The general level of language size and complexity, especially around templates, has only gotten worse. Concepts will finally help in some ways here.

variadic templates and type deduction greatly help. A lot of complex template metaprogramming is suddenly not needed anymore (I've used boost::mpl a lot in the past, but not once in the last 10 years). constexpr functions also helped get rid a lot more use cases. Finally if constexpr made a lot of sfinae hacks obsolete.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:You can't make C++ not ugly, but you can't not try (2010) by eqvinox on Thursday February 27, 2020 @08:42AM (#22433114)

> FWIW, I find std::map operator[] creating an object extremely convenient and it is very annoying having to use defaultdict to get the same behavior [edit: in python]. So ugliness really depends on what you are used to.

Adding behavior to replace a NULL/None return with a default object is pretty easy.

Removing the default object that you've been inflicted upon... how would you go about that?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:You can't make C++ not ugly, but you can't not try (2010) by gpderetta on Thursday February 27, 2020 @09:27AM (#22433511)

if you do not like operator[] behaviour just use map::at

[ Parent | on HN ]