Hacker News Reader

> This person is not a very good C++ programmer.

Am I a bad C++ programmer for agreeing with some of it?

> 5. #pragma once: see modules. They are in fact trying to make something better. There are also some cases where you don't want/need it

The fact that modules have taken so long, and still have prominent members of the community saying they need to be sent back to the drawing board, is a legitimate criticism.

> 7. Binary file includes. Ugh this is just such a dumb idea I can't even.

It's a useful feature, much used in the language I work on, allowing you to distribute a program that needs just one or two static data files as a single executable. It's also good for packaging data as libraries: for instance, Unicode libraries need a lot of random tables and it can be convenient to store these in binary form. Having to embed binary in C/C++ syntax as, say, ICU does just adds parsing overhead at compile time for no reason.

> 9. do/while(0). What are you using macros for in 2016 (the time of writing)?

There are lots of use cases of macros, too many to list here. Templates don't always suffice.

> 11. Switch/case is stupid. No it's not. You want fall/through cases as well and if you can't see why, don't criticize. This is true in pretty much EVERY language that supports switch/case

I designed much of the pattern matching system in an industry language without fall through in switch case and I have never missed it. Nor has anyone else in the community I know of.

I think you can regard switch/case as syntax sugar for a series of if/else. So fallthrough may not be needed but more sugar is nice to have available.

Yep, I also think modules are still relatively far away. I also hope that the C++ community can embrace some package management system.. at some point in time. Hopefully before I die

C# lets you do "goto case XXX" to go to another case, and empty cases fall through to the next. This is a bit inconsistent, but it at least retains the useful fall-through case, gets rid of the usually-undesirable case, and still accommodates the occasional exceptions.

Some good points. But "See reflection TS", really? That lands only in C++20. This article is from 2016.

Yeah, but look at when C++ started getting regular releases.

These are hard problems, and the things in 11, 14, and 17 are useful. Ultimately, people [on the committee and developing the language] are prioritizing what they need.

It's not a closed process; it's just a slow one.

Languages where switch-statements or switch-expressions don't fallthrough by default include Ada, C#, E, Go, Monte, Perl, Swift, and I think basically every flavor of Pascal.

"Pretty much every language," right? C++ is right in there with C, JavaScript, and PHP.

This comment is hilarious. C++ is more than 30 years old now, and you're expecting users to have mastered proposed future enhancements?

If you're going to complain about missing features in the language, you should probably be aware of what plans are being made for the language's future...

Dude, for code I'm writing today, your future solutions are worth nothing.

Most of these features are available in the core language already. The ones that aren't are implemented in the form of libraries. Like every other language...

> This person is not a very good C++ programmer.

This is the biggest thing that is wrong with C++. Everything is always stupid human's fault. :D

> 7. Binary file includes. Ugh this is just such a dumb idea I can't even. When do you want the file to load? When the executable does? What if you want to read it in chunks? This idea is not well suited for a systems-oriented language

This can be really useful in embedded devices where there is no file system but I don't really see the need for it to be part of the language, every time I've needed it the toolchain came with build tools to handle this.

> 11. Switch/case is stupid. No it's not. You want fall/through cases as well and if you can't see why, don't criticize. This is true in pretty much EVERY language that supports switch/case

a smarter option may have been to require an explicit break or fallthrough keyword but we're a good 40 years late.

>12. Still no strong typedefs. There are! Use the explicit keyword on a constructor definition.

Define a new wrapper class (maybe I'm missing something)? It would be a lot nicer if you could do something like `typedef explicit int FooId;`

> Define a new wrapper class

For simple types, for which this makes most sense but from which you cannot inherit, it is a lot of work.

Just to play devil's advocate, you could make a template for defining such wrappers. But then, it might just as well be built into the language for elimination of such boilerplate.

What's Reflection TS?

It's a proposal for inclusion into the C++ standard.

It took me a minute with a few googles, but the TS in this case means "Technical Specification", which helped out a ton with searching.

Unfortunately, I'm still not 100% this is what they're referring to, but I think this is it.

https://isocpp.org/files/papers/n3996.pdf

EDIT: Here it is :D

https://www.meetingcpp.com/blog/items/reflections-on-the-ref...