Comment by infinisil | Hacker News Reader

Comment by infinisil | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The title is very misleading. I was expecting a discussion about the future of programming, why there will probably never be a "best" language or why we're not all using functional languages yet. Was disappointed after reading the first sentence:

> Yes, you've guessed correctly - the answer is "42". In this article you will find 42 recommendations about coding in C++ that can help a programmer avoid a lot of errors, save time and effort.

The article states that these tips are 'usually universal', but I hardly found that to be true, only having counted about 10 points not being about C++.

The title should probably be something like the obvious "42 tips for C++ programmers" as the current one really doesn't justify the content.

OK, we changed the title to be less misleading, as the HN guidelines request (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).

>The title is very misleading.

I agree the title originally as submitted[1] is not helpful. When the author submitted[2] it to Intel DZ, he re-used the same vague title as the original PVS-Studio article from April 2016: http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0391/

HN admins already edit titles with [YEAR] to signify an old article. In the same vein, I do wish the admins (or the original submitters to save the admins the effort) went even further and exercised editorial judgement to add [NON-CUTE SUBTITLE] to negate the effects of cute-but-meaningless titles.

In this case, there would be a "[C/C++ refactoring tips]" like you suggested appended to the end of the title.

[1] original submitted HN title: "The Ultimate Question of Programming, Refactoring, and Everything"

[2] https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/how-to-contribute-...

You're very much correct, but I'm almost glad I got hoodwinked. I've debated whether I'm handicapping myself by sticking with Python and Rust, but reading through this list I was just aghast at how many problems I didn't realize I was avoiding.

It should probably be titled "42 examples of static analysis catching programmers outsmarting themselves".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com