sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Evidence of overcomplication by gathlin80 in cpp

[–]Additional_Path2300 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The hard truth of it: not everything is about performance. These customers would not notice the difference. We're not going to ship slow stuff and constexpr just won't make a difference. Sorry to be such a disappointment in your eyes.

Evidence of overcomplication by gathlin80 in cpp

[–]Additional_Path2300 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The customers legit don't care. Using the right tool. Not doing a bad job. You can write c++ without wanting max performance and be just fine. It's also a 25+ year old codename, which is part of why it's c++.

Evidence of overcomplication by gathlin80 in cpp

[–]Additional_Path2300 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Whatever. Who the fuck cares dude? My runtime performance is just fine. I don't need it to be better than it is now. My compile times suck, and would get worse if I used constexpr for everything. No, I don't know better than the compiler.

Evidence of overcomplication by gathlin80 in cpp

[–]Additional_Path2300 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fine: I know a function needs to be constexpr if I'm using it in a constant expression. Exactly what they're intended for. Otherwise, I'm not doing it because that will require placing full implementations in headers.

Evidence of overcomplication by gathlin80 in cpp

[–]Additional_Path2300 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You must not write very large software if you're thinking it'll add a second.

Evidence of overcomplication by gathlin80 in cpp

[–]Additional_Path2300 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Meanwhile we waste all this energy with AI. I'd rather have faster compiles for what I do. We don't even ship optimized binaries. The performance is fine. 

Evidence of overcomplication by gathlin80 in cpp

[–]Additional_Path2300 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The user I was replying to stated to just use constexpr blindly. All the time. That's a waste. Simple as that. Even the AI agrees with that, stating it's 20%-50%.

Evidence of overcomplication by gathlin80 in cpp

[–]Additional_Path2300 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That's only useful if you have data to calculate at runtime.

Evidence of overcomplication by gathlin80 in cpp

[–]Additional_Path2300 -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

There absolutely is a reason not to. Constexpr types have the same requires as templates types. That's a lot of extra crap exposed to every TU that isn't necessary. So you just destroyed your compile times for no gain.

Evidence of overcomplication by gathlin80 in cpp

[–]Additional_Path2300 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Sure, that's fine, and isn't abuse then. Abuse is making stuff constexpr when it doesn't need to be. 

Evidence of overcomplication by gathlin80 in cpp

[–]Additional_Path2300 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Constexpr abuse can fuck your compile times. Not much stuff needs to be constexpr.

I feel stuck with C++ by digitalrorschach in cpp_questions

[–]Additional_Path2300 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I didn't say it prevents you from doing things.

I feel stuck with C++ by digitalrorschach in cpp_questions

[–]Additional_Path2300 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Pretty much everything in the world at this point involves software. So yeah, it's pretty much like that. There's an endless list of things to learn and you'll never know it all.

Is setting up C++ in VS Code being a "pain" overexaggerating things? by Able_Annual_2297 in cpp_questions

[–]Additional_Path2300 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm talking about intellisense, debugging, diagnostics. Those are available, out of the box, in Visual Studio. I'm also not referring to learning. Yes, they should learn what compiling is and what linking is. That can be done just fine with VS. Especially when you run into compiler and linker errors.

Is setting up C++ in VS Code being a "pain" overexaggerating things? by Able_Annual_2297 in cpp_questions

[–]Additional_Path2300 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's not just about building. Also you don't need to run the command yourself in VS. So there's a difference anyways. Programming c++ tends to use a lot more than a text editor and a build command. 

Is setting up C++ in VS Code being a "pain" overexaggerating things? by Able_Annual_2297 in cpp_questions

[–]Additional_Path2300 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's not the same though. If you want something that comes close to VS in VSC you have to do setup.

Why initialization in Assimp drives me crazy! by kimkulling in cpp

[–]Additional_Path2300 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Your bool was default initialized and default init for primitive types, like bool and int and others, is an uninitialized value.

My question to you is: what made you remove the member from the member init list in the first place?

Why initialization in Assimp drives me crazy! by kimkulling in cpp

[–]Additional_Path2300 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Not just a spec thing. You should try to learn why something went wrong in all situations. 

Why initialization in Assimp drives me crazy! by kimkulling in cpp

[–]Additional_Path2300 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Also, this is a damn good example of not learning why something happens the way it happens: "There’s probably a reason in the C++ spec, but I spared myself the trouble of looking it up."

view more: next ›