On Tuesday, 28 November 2017 at 02:26:34 UTC, Neia Neutuladh
wrote:
On Monday, 27 November 2017 at 17:35:53 UTC, Ola Fosheim
Grostad wrote:
On Monday, 27 November 2017 at 16:44:41 UTC, Neia Neutuladh
wrote:
I last used C++ professionally in 2015, and we were still
rolling out C++11. std::string_view is part of C++17. You're
calling me stupid for not having already known about it.
(Yes, yes, you were sufficiently indirect to have a fig leaf
of deniability.)
I'n not talking about you obviously. I am talking about using
languages stupidly...
You can ask your local HR representative how much better it is
to say "your ideas are stupid" than "you are stupid".
Could ask Linus about that, think I recall something about baby
sloth dropped on it's head retardation level, or something.
C++ is very much batteries not included... Which is good for
low level programming.
So you're saying that having a body of well tested code that
does what you want already but *might* be making performance
tradeoffs that don't work for your use case, is *worse* than
not having it.
Well, it's a heterodox opinion to be sure.
For C++ that's boost. Most people avoid it cause of all the bloat
anyways.
It is often useful to talk about real-world workloads when
discussing performance.
Well, in that case Java was sufficiently fast, so all
languages came out the same...
You might try reading my first post.
Java: 140ms to print "Hello world"
D: 50ms to turn a 400kb subtex document into an epub
Were you including startup times? Then that's not a very fair
comparison. Lots of applications aren't just start and stop
frequently. These benchmarks are all but pointless for
performance anyways. Like when someone updated the D sort
functions, they made an article about how much faster sorting was
in D than C++. Well no shit, you just spent a bunch of time
optimizing it based on some tiny stupid test.
Anyways if you think that's a valid comparison of performance you
have no idea what's going on.
