[JabavuAdams]

I used to be a C++ guy from the early 90s 'till about 2010. Every few months, I think "I should really learn the new C++ hotness", and then I read something like this. It's like a bunch of priests arguing about how best to fit a bunch of ugly angels on a pointless pin. It just feels so pointless.

If you must use C++, just use another language to generate the C++. All this template mumbo jumbo. Who says your meta-programming language has to be the same as your target language?

I used to spend some time looking for the perfect vector (as in linear-algebra) library. Templatized for vector dimension, data-type, blah blah blah. Dude, just use Python to generate it. Duplication doesn't violate DRY if the duplication is generated from a single higher-level source.

Doing meta-programming in C++ is a really limited way of thinking.

[flukus]

> Who says your meta-programming language has to be the same as your target language?

I'd lay blame at IDE's and they way the take over the build system along with intellisense. They don't play well with anything generated before the compile step. Even adding a build step is and alien concept to many, so we end up with the build step shoe horned into languages.

[nealabq]

> fit a bunch of ugly angels on a pointless pin. It just feels so pointless.

A pointless pin would indeed be pointless.

[mattnewport]

I don't think anyone on the C++ committee is proposing banning you from generating C++ code with Python. I also doubt anyone who's interested in C++ metaprogramming has failed to consider the possibility of doing codegen via other means. In light of these facts what seems rather pointless is your comment.