I'm a fan of C++ overall, but it seems to me that C++ templates are a bit of a disaster. They're so complex that I doubt that anybody but you and P. J. Plauger *fully* understands them. Also, when they're actually used, they often result in bloated, slow code - as I recently experienced when stepping through some STL string functions. Further, they bring on a lot of portability issues, evidently due to the difficulty that even the compiler folks have had in understanding and implementing them. Therefore
Sorry but this is nonsense. Templates aren't any slower than hand-written code. Compilers may have had problems with templates a decade ago, but template support among the major compilers nowadays are very solid and consistent.
You say "many programmers minimize their use of templates, both in their own code and in their use of templated library code" -- are you saying "many" programmers writing C++ don't use boost or the standard library? Because that too is nonsense. Many bad programmers perhaps?
Not as many as possible. Use the right tool for the right job, as always. But don't rule out libraries because they use templates -- that's downright silly. Templates are made for writing generic code, which maps very well to libraries. Lastly, I don't claim to be a *good* programmer, but I do at least make an effort to understand the language that I'm using.
...but I do at least make an effort to understand the language that I'm using.
Unlike us "bad" programmers...
My basic point in the original point was that C++ templates are so complex as to be nearly impossible for most of us to *fully* understand. Don't you think that implies at least some sort of effort to understand them? In retrospect, though, my failure to fully understand them can only be attributed to my own abilities, not to the design of templates themselves. My bad...
Don't you think that implies at least some sort of effort to understand them?
Well apparently not, because you stated multiple points that are, as of today, patently false. Perhaps it was different in C++98, but (in case you didn't know), it's not 1998 anymore.
According to all the latest reports, there was no truth in any of the
earlier reports.
Templates all over again (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm a fan of C++ overall, but it seems to me that C++ templates are a bit of a disaster. They're so complex that I doubt that anybody but you and P. J. Plauger *fully* understands them. Also, when they're actually used, they often result in bloated, slow code - as I recently experienced when stepping through some STL string functions. Further, they bring on a lot of portability issues, evidently due to the difficulty that even the compiler folks have had in understanding and implementing them. Therefore
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry but this is nonsense. Templates aren't any slower than hand-written code. Compilers may have had problems with templates a decade ago, but template support among the major compilers nowadays are very solid and consistent.
You say "many programmers minimize their use of templates, both in their own code and in their use of templated library code" -- are you saying "many" programmers writing C++ don't use boost or the standard library? Because that too is nonsense. Many bad programmers perhaps?
Lastl
Re:Templates all over again (Score:1)
"I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way." --Jessica Rabbit [imdb.com]
Gee, Wally [imdb.com], if I use as many templates and template libraries as possible, do ya figure I can become a *good* programmer like you? ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
...but I do at least make an effort to understand the language that I'm using.
Unlike us "bad" programmers...
My basic point in the original point was that C++ templates are so complex as to be nearly impossible for most of us to *fully* understand. Don't you think that implies at least some sort of effort to understand them? In retrospect, though, my failure to fully understand them can only be attributed to my own abilities, not to the design of templates themselves. My bad...
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you think that implies at least some sort of effort to understand them?
Well apparently not, because you stated multiple points that are, as of today, patently false. Perhaps it was different in C++98, but (in case you didn't know), it's not 1998 anymore.