C++ developer choices in open source projects

[H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d]

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 03:52:51PM +0000, Atila Neves via Digitalmars-d
wrote: [...]
> >CERN remains at the centre of so much good software development.
> >Which is why they use Python.
> 
> Wait, what? Good software development? At CERN?? Really??? As a friend
> of mine one put it:
> 
> "At CERN, 10% of people writing code know what they're doing, 45%
> don't know what they're doing but are aware of it, and 45% don't know
> what they're doing but think they do because software development is
> 'so much easier than Physics'".
> 
> I've seen recently (as in weeks ago) written Python code from ATLAS.
> It's so atrocious it doesn't even look like Python. Most people I know
> still working at CERN don't even know what C++11 is, much less use it.
[...]

It's probably a good thing they don't know what C++11 is, otherwise they
might start writing even more horrendous code using operator""(). I
suppose I've been a frog in the well, but it was only yesterday when I
discovered that C++11 allows user-defined literals via operator""().
Skimming over the docs for that today, I couldn't help but shake my head
at just how wrong the whole conception of it is. It's just *asking* to
be abused for writing inscrutable, unreadable, unmaintainable code. I
honestly have trouble imagining any sane use case for it apart from
submitting obfuscated code contest entries. But hey, what's one more
nail in a coffin already crawling with monstrosities like
Boost.Xpressive?

D had it right by moving all these user-defined literals into strings
that are parsed at compile-time. Much more powerful than the crippled
stuff operator""() can accept, and far less dangerous and lightyears
more maintainable. Sighhh... D has ruined my life, I just can't go back
to C++ anymore...


T

-- 
Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Use your hands...