|
What would you use it for?
|
|
|
|
|
Serialisation or deserialisation of objects. Loading the layout of a UI from XML in a handful of lines and getting an instance of the object tree sure beats constructing those objects in code.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.
|
|
|
|
|
That empty destructor isn't actually empty - I just didn't post the contents. There's more going on in this class and I've just stripped it down for brevity.
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, sure. Any reason for not using constructor initializer? Such direct assignments are where they shine!
|
|
|
|
|
When debugging, I like to have all my eggs in one basket. A single destructor where everything is in one spot makes it harder to overlook something instead of when the initialisation is distributed all over the place.
For clarity and readability, I think there should be exactly one way of doing something. If not, choose one and stick to it. This way there are less surprises for those who look at your code for the first time.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.
|
|
|
|
|
It is, but I'm not that worried about this at the moment. I will refactor later on, but right now I'm using this to log out the device status and options so while I'm locking this down I'm staying old school.
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
|
It's not a bad thing to keep classes as stateless as possible. So much less that has to be memory managed or made thread safe. An empty destructor would mean that the class is very safe in that respect, but it's not a good idea to try to reach this at all cost.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.
|
|
|
|
|
Glad to see you enjoy the new goodies. In my previous job, elephanting legacy forced us to stick with C++03. 
for(auto index: my_vector) is cool.
for(const auto& index: my_vector) even more so!
And, today we do not have to use pointers in containers any more. 
... such stuff as dreams are made on
|
|
|
|
|
C++98 a la VS6. In 2016.
DURA LEX, SED LEX
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP. -- TNCaver
When I was six, there were no ones and zeroes - only zeroes. And not all of them worked. -- Ravi Bhavnani
|
|
|
|
|
Please forgive my curiosity. You have been in that place for quite some time (I think), do you ever consider a switch?
... such stuff as dreams are made on
|
|
|
|
|
Almost 5 years, 9 months as a (paid) intern, 3 years as apprentice and then finally hired for good.
I am considering a switch, for a number of reasosn, mostly for the low pay for the job I do but the working environment has its faults that are grating on my nerves after all this time. Its 4 years and a half that we have to upgrade to VS2008, I started using it but was forced every effing time to reimport all the changes in the VS6 project and fix the effing code because several things present and accepted in VS2008 fail under VS6. I stopped due to frustration.
DURA LEX, SED LEX
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP. -- TNCaver
When I was six, there were no ones and zeroes - only zeroes. And not all of them worked. -- Ravi Bhavnani
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed, modern C++ ist an elegant language. It has one huge flaw though: It's legacy. I, for example, can write elegant code in modern C++, but several of my coworkers can't. Some even brush me off with "I've learned it like that in the 60s and I won't learn anything new". Some even treat the C++-compiler as a C-compiler and write plain C, bluntly ignoring all the wonders of std::string or array<t>. This makes me think that C++ still isn't ready for prime-time. The standard needs to deprecate all this legacy stuff and throw warnings all over the place if someone refuses to dig into the last 50 years of CS progression. If C++ starts doing that, I'll take it seriously. Until then, I'll stick to C# (unless I'm on a ressource-contrained embedded target).
|
|
|
|
|
This sounds like me. I was once quite proficient in C++ but then I got into C# and simply haven't updated my C++ at all.
Last time I used it was in 2003 I think. The latest versions look so different and have so many new features that I would really have to study hard to catch up.
We're philosophical about power outages here. A.C. come, A.C. go.
|
|
|
|
|
Welcome back to the codeface! 
C++ 14 is amazing, and a very different language from the one I had to use until a few years ago. We had the pleasure of meeting Bjarne at the ACCU Conference a few years back when C++ 11 first landed, and his enthusiasm for the future of the language was infectious.
I'm a big fan of std::shared_ptr, auto, range based loops and std::thread. All have (and still are) simplifying our code significantly. Then of course there are move semantics and rvalue references, which can dramatically improve performance.
But more is coming - C++ 17[^] is nearly done (though sadly without the modules proposal[^], despite it already being implemented in Clang) and C++ 20 is being planned.
Anna ( @annajayne)
Tech Blog | Visual Lint
"Why would anyone prefer to wield a weapon that takes both hands at once, when they could use a lighter (and obviously superior) weapon that allows you to wield multiple ones at a time, and thus supports multi-paradigm carnage?"
|
|
|
|
|
It's a vastly different language to the one I knew. As I have the advantage of writing from scratch, I have the advantage of not having to deal with legacy and cruft. It's a liberating experience.
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
|
It certainly is. 
Thought of coming along to the ACCU Conference? There's a strong C++ track (and sometimes even a C++ Pub Quiz with free beer...) there.
Anna ( @annajayne)
Tech Blog | Visual Lint
"Why would anyone prefer to wield a weapon that takes both hands at once, when they could use a lighter (and obviously superior) weapon that allows you to wield multiple ones at a time, and thus supports multi-paradigm carnage?"
|
|
|
|
|
It depends how serious I get with this drone software. The more I'm playing around with this, the more I love working with drones and I can see me going further with it.
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds cool. Have fun!
Anna ( @annajayne)
Tech Blog | Visual Lint
"Why would anyone prefer to wield a weapon that takes both hands at once, when they could use a lighter (and obviously superior) weapon that allows you to wield multiple ones at a time, and thus supports multi-paradigm carnage?"
|
|
|
|
|
I'll be writing this up and posting video footage so you will be able to take a look at least at some of the code. It's really cool stuff.
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
|
Look forward to it
Anna ( @annajayne)
Tech Blog | Visual Lint
"Why would anyone prefer to wield a weapon that takes both hands at once, when they could use a lighter (and obviously superior) weapon that allows you to wield multiple ones at a time, and thus supports multi-paradigm carnage?"
|
|
|
|
|
All of the input and output operators in old, old C++ offered fluent interfaces.
cin >> x >> y;
cout << setw(10) << x << setw(12) << y << endl;
Ignoring references, you can always just
return this;
at the end of a function which requires code like:
variable->f1(args1)->f2(args2)->f3(args3);
|
|
|
|
|
I'm happy enough with what I've got now.
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
|
C++ and MFC; I did everything I could to avoid that sack of shite:
Basic
Assembler
PC COBOL
Pascal
C
Access
dBase
Paradox
VB
Clipper
FoxPro
Visual FoxPro
Delphi
C#
Windows Forms
WPF
...
|
|
|
|
|
I spent a lot of time in MFC. Then I discovered ATL and wasee hooked until I moved to .NET.
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
|
You seem to be retaining the C# coding style, single-file and all
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
