No no no no nonononono. No!
Loose typing was a mistake. I think any sober analyst of C and C++ knows that. The languages have been trying to rectify it ever since.
But dynamic typing was an even bigger mistake. Perversely, it's one caused by a language not having a compiler that can type check the code, which C does.
I want to actually know what my code is doing, thanks. If you want "expressive" programs that are impossible to reason about, just build the whole thing in Python or JS. (And then pull the classic move of breaking out mypy or TypeScript half way in to development, tee hee.)
The only time `auto` is acceptable is when used for lambdas or things whose type is already deducable from the initializer, like `auto p = make_unique<Foo>()`.
In this case it would be long. I fail to see the huge risk you're implying by operating upon a long-typed value without repeating the type name in the code.
const auto pos_auto = ftell(fp);
const long pos_long = ftell(fp);
Thank you for answering for me!
That's one reason type inference is safer than not inferring. Your program doesn't include semantics you didn't actually intend to be part of its meaning.
Also, I think lambdas would be annoying without it.
I meant that, to a person reading the code, `auto` tells you about as much about the type you're looking at as no type at all (like in a dynamically typed language).
This chatter said it better: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35814337
#noauto
Also it can (in my opinion, brains seems to work differently) lower the cognitive load of a piece of code, by simply reducing the clutter.
Sure it can obscure the exact type of things, but I guess that's the trade-off some people are willing to do, at least sometimes.
Something like:
saves you from having to remember if ftell() returns int, long, long long, size_t, ssize_t, off_t or whatever and in many cases you can still use the value returned by e.g. comparing it to other values and so on without needing to know the exact type.If you want to do I/O (print the number) then you have to know or convert to a known type of course.
This was just a quick response off the top of my head, I haven't actually used GCC 13/C2x yet although it would be dreamy to get a chance to port some old project over.