Comment by pbalau
16 hours ago
Is it hidden if it's explained in the standard?
I think Linus's complain was before there was a c++ standard. An updated version of the complaint would be "this shit is doing too much".
16 hours ago
Is it hidden if it's explained in the standard?
I think Linus's complain was before there was a c++ standard. An updated version of the complaint would be "this shit is doing too much".
> Is it hidden if it's explained in the standard?
In the context of that particular complaint, yes. From what I understand the gist of it is basically that you should be able to tell what is going on by looking at the code locally (i.e., the code is "explicit").
> I think Linus's complain was before there was a c++ standard.
These emails [0]? IIRC those are the most well-known ones and they are from the mid-2000s
[0]: https://harmful.cat-v.org/software/c++/linus
An empty loop, under some non-obvious conditions, on some compiler flags but not others, silently transforms into a system call. In a systems programming language.
I try to minimize use of destructors for the same reason.
Destructors run predictably at list, and are pervasive everywhere. You know that when you exit a scope, be that a function or whatever it may, the destructors of variables in that scope are called. That is clear and consistent. The transformation mentioned above is not.
4 replies →