I know that I might bore the general population with this topic, but here it comes – another post on why the past was glorious and the present sucks. Before I start, a necessary clarification: I know that „the young generation of programmers is incredibly talented, inventive, productive” and everyone expects to hear that from me. Reality is somewhat different – and you’ll see below why. We have the most sophisticated tools ever, in the history of man-kind.
Băieții de la Microsoft arată că în sfârșit cine a trecut la conducere are o minte deschisă spre dezvoltator, și că nu e nevoie de șeful firmei să urle Developers pe scenă ca să demonstreze că îi plac. Ce se întâmplă – pentru cei care nu știu, multă vreme în Windows NT (chiar și în NT 4.0 – dar cred că a fost retras după Windows 2000) exista un subsistem numit POSIX care îți permitea implementarea unor diverse operații folosind API-urile POSIX.
I must first confess I didn’t read the standard thoroughly. It’s not that important – there’s one huge flaw in the design of C++'s new that makes it quite hard to have good things like encapsulation. Theoretically, that’s what the header–source file split is for. That’s why we have to deal with the preprocessor mess, because we want this sort of encapsulation, where we only expose the interface, leaving the implementation details to be just that – a detail.
Since I had a lot of people telling me that no, C++ doesn’t suck, I said I would write in full some of the reasons why C++ does suck. I called it C++ sucks to make sure that people do understand what I refer to. So, without further ado, let’s see today’s topic. The C++11 standard defined new functions for conversions between primitive types and strings. A set of functions to transform primitive types into strings and vice-versa.
I see that there’s some interest around my „Day when I gave up on C++„. People on reddit discover this article of mine from time to time, and it’s somewhat boring to see the same things discussed over and over again. To be honest, I don’t agree with my article, but I do agree with the points I’m making. I was very upset that day – it was yet another try to start a project when I had to work for two days for the basic setup only to see that things don’t work.
It’s a strategy since early 90s, at least, for the interviewers to ask questions about bugs. It’s a bad strategy and this tendency should stop: not only you don’t hire compiler writers, but you don’t necessarily want your hires to understand buggy code, you want them to write bug-free code. I found this set of slides on the good old interwebs. It’s an interview about deep C and C++ knowledge, that brings no surprises to anyone.
I will make a list of things that I want from my blog system which I will not name now because reasons. So, here it is: Native or bytecode, no interpreted language. The reason why many choose interpreted language is that they or the ones writing their software find it easier to modify the code. However, how many times do you really need to modify it? Because having it interpreted with every page view costs more than the time you need to compile and deploy the compiled code.
For the past weeks I’ve been trying fruitlessly to make SDL2 work with my current setup. I just bought CLion and I was eager to test it – however, I also wanted to remind myself why I got into programming in the first place, and that reason is „writing games”. Which I never have done. I’m also a huge fan of the developments in the C++ programming language – and I want to keep myself up-to-date with the latest and greatest additions.