Hacker News Reader

Comment by someonebaggy | Hacker News Reader

Core guidelines, and any other pattern document, should be downstream of working code, not upstream.

Okay? The point of the guidelines is to document principles the committee's thinks "good" C++ should follow, within the much larger universe of possible C++ code.

Yes? Instead, we have committee declaring large bodies of existing code invalid and non-conformant, because it does not fit their spherical cow C++. You would think, with amount of no-exceptions and no-rtti code out there, and feature being present in most compilers for decades, they would take a hint and reflect actual usage in their standard? No, why would they. Any C++ that has no exceptions, rtti or std:: namespace is invalid. Not even against guidelines.

So if you find good code that works a different way, do you update your beliefs on what good code is, or on whether that code is good?

To summarize, the grandparent comment lamented how it's sad that the modern language has diverged from the code in the article. Someone else pointed out that the code still works. I suggested that the complaint remains valid in spite of that because the language committee's core guidelines prohibit it. Notice I haven't mentioned my opinion at all.

You've responded to that suggestion with seemingly irrelevant comments. Do you see why I'm confused?

For what it's worth, my actual opinion is that the committee is usually wrong/misguided.

the CCG isn't from the committee, but from Bjarne Stroustrup and Herb Sutter.

Bjarne is often in disagreement with the committee

Reply on news.ycombinator.com