| > 2) We enforced coding discipline religiously so that all virtual functions are unambiguously identified with full signatures across the entire class hierarchy. > 3) When you need to refactor you did simple search/replace on the full signature using grep/ctags/cscope/whatever across the entire codebase. That can break in a ton of ways. Still. For example, if the pattern is not correct for grep. ctags/cscope does not fully understand C++ also AFAIK. Then you are shifting from debug your code to debug your greps, etc. Not sure how you did it exactly, but I see it as a fragile practice. Because you rely on absolute human discipline. > This might be the most valueless discussion i have had on HN and that too over a utter triviality...sigh. Sorry for that. Feel free to not reply. But do not take it to the emotional terrain so fast. I just argued since the start that C++ improvements are not an accumulation of "pet features" for the sake of it. It is you who presented that as facts without any kind of evidence in the first place. To be clear, I do not care about C++ that much or anything particularly. But I have used it enough to identify one of your top posts as emotional and non-factual. Greetings. |
I should have probably said something like "override is just a compiler crutch for lazy programmers who can't be bothered to be careful in their job" but i thought it might get me banned from HN :-)
>It is you who presented that as facts without any kind of evidence in the first place.
My comments just in this whole thread refute your above statement.
>But I have used it enough to identify one of your top posts as emotional and non-factual.
I don't think you have understood the motivations behind the features you claim to have used, how they were solved earlier without those features and properly judging whether the change was worth it.