Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #80243 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-06-10 12:18 +0200 |
| Last post | 2021-06-11 17:06 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 252 — 51 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++
Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-10 12:18 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bo Persson <bo@bo-persson.se> - 2021-06-10 13:21 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-06-10 14:37 +0300
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-10 15:44 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-10 16:39 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-10 16:47 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bo Persson <bo@bo-persson.se> - 2021-06-10 22:00 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-10 22:09 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2021-06-11 06:57 -0400
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-11 13:16 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bo Persson <bo@bo-persson.se> - 2021-06-11 13:27 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-11 13:53 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2021-06-11 19:12 -0400
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-12 04:09 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2021-06-12 08:50 -0400
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-12 15:43 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2021-06-12 18:59 -0400
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-13 07:31 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2021-06-13 08:09 -0400
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-13 14:12 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2021-06-13 09:50 -0400
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-13 16:05 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2021-06-13 11:23 -0400
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-13 18:56 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2021-06-13 13:37 -0400
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-14 05:16 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2021-06-14 07:00 -0400
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially MrSpook_t0Y6kgpd5@3dryi7no.gov - 2021-06-13 08:39 +0000
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2021-06-11 19:11 -0400
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-12 04:10 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2021-06-11 22:18 -0700
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-12 08:18 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2021-06-12 01:43 -0700
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-12 11:00 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2021-06-12 02:04 -0700
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-12 11:15 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2021-06-12 02:24 -0700
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-12 11:30 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2021-06-12 12:59 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-12 13:27 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-12 13:19 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2021-06-12 13:30 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-12 13:39 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-12 14:04 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-12 15:30 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2021-06-12 08:53 -0400
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-12 15:31 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2021-06-12 18:43 -0400
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-13 07:31 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-06-13 07:48 -0400
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-13 14:03 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-13 14:12 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2021-06-13 11:21 -0400
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-13 18:55 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2021-06-13 13:38 -0400
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-14 05:18 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2021-06-14 07:00 -0400
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-14 13:08 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2021-06-14 18:35 -0400
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2021-06-14 22:49 -0700
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2021-06-15 08:11 -0400
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially MrSpook_ka1o_g@otuej9sdvqn8a4.gov.uk - 2021-06-15 12:54 +0000
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-06-15 13:09 -0700
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially MrSpook_b1My5@751smt.edu - 2021-06-16 08:44 +0000
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-06-16 13:11 +0300
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially MrSpook_p6g@ktmy0vg8lj7jxt.biz - 2021-06-16 10:21 +0000
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2021-06-16 06:41 -0400
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially MrSpook_F2ryro5_b@ugk_rvxkkm.gov - 2021-06-16 11:11 +0000
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2021-06-16 08:25 -0400
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-06-16 16:10 +0300
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-16 15:59 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially MrSpook_ucGx3e4l@x8gqtuqjwl9z3g.com - 2021-06-16 13:47 +0000
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-06-16 15:09 +0000
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-16 17:50 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially MrSpook_hjesjs@8pot25r5sg1xe.info - 2021-06-16 15:45 +0000
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-06-16 21:08 +0300
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-06-16 19:06 +0000
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-06-16 13:09 +0000
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-06-15 20:30 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-06-16 04:33 +0000
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-16 10:35 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-16 11:18 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? MrSpook_u_kch7_3@abbbp5z5c0iw8rwgxg4.gov - 2021-06-16 09:34 +0000
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-16 11:53 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? MrSpook_ge@ldwlviy1f9uwd19thc.gov - 2021-06-16 10:19 +0000
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-16 13:09 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? MrSpook_3_fdyox@sg5nvjmv741xbigdp6.info - 2021-06-16 09:04 +0000
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-06-16 09:20 +0000
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Tim Woodall <news001@woodall.me.uk> - 2021-06-16 09:49 +0000
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-16 13:14 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? MrSpook_G1Sw6pdcqz@5a69.edu - 2021-06-16 11:25 +0000
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-16 14:43 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-16 14:44 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? MrSpook_g3w@2ur2yrijxtw7d3jt394yu9dp.org - 2021-06-16 13:48 +0000
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-16 16:07 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? MrSpook_74D@ov88_wt8h.co.uk - 2021-06-16 13:54 +0000
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-16 19:55 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-06-16 13:14 +0000
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-06-16 10:38 -0400
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-16 19:58 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2021-06-17 13:45 -0700
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> - 2021-06-17 21:15 +0000
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-06-18 15:23 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-18 08:56 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2021-06-18 08:06 -0700
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-18 17:41 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2021-06-18 14:31 -0700
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2021-06-19 02:53 -0700
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2021-06-19 11:10 +1200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? MrSpook_gavL@es9w71p.tv - 2021-06-18 15:53 +0000
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-06-18 16:06 +0000
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? MrSpook_Zp_@opm5ve6jyhq.ac.uk - 2021-06-18 09:22 +0000
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2021-06-16 04:55 -0700
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-06-16 13:16 +0000
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2021-06-16 11:03 -0700
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-06-17 05:35 +0000
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2021-06-17 16:51 -0700
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2021-06-17 20:19 -0400
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2021-06-17 18:22 -0700
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? MrSpook_6a2az@yxcggolr9p.com - 2021-06-18 09:24 +0000
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2021-06-18 08:20 -0400
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-18 15:38 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2021-06-18 18:01 -0400
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-19 12:32 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2021-06-19 09:12 -0400
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-19 15:24 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2021-06-19 17:33 -0400
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-20 09:45 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2021-06-19 03:33 -0700
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2021-06-19 09:38 -0400
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2021-06-19 12:50 -0700
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2021-06-19 17:46 -0400
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2021-06-20 05:19 -0700
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-06-19 23:27 +0300
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2021-06-19 17:50 -0400
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-06-19 16:44 -0700
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-06-18 17:46 +0300
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2021-06-18 17:41 -0400
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-06-19 11:21 +0300
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2021-06-19 09:08 -0400
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-06-20 21:09 +0300
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2021-06-20 11:59 -0700
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-06-20 22:02 +0300
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-06-20 14:56 -0700
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-06-21 09:22 +0300
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-06-21 16:46 -0700
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-06-22 10:56 +0300
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-06-22 12:49 -0700
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-06-23 01:36 +0300
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-06-23 14:32 +0000
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-23 16:55 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-06-24 16:13 -0700
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-06-25 14:34 +0000
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-06-25 12:16 -0700
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2021-06-22 15:36 -0700
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-06-24 16:09 -0700
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-06-21 17:12 -0700
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2021-06-20 19:03 -0400
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-06-21 09:52 +0300
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> - 2021-06-18 00:18 -0700
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2021-06-18 02:06 -0700
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-06-21 12:43 +0000
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2021-06-21 22:48 +0100
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-06-22 05:30 +0000
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2021-06-21 23:12 -0700
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? MrSpook_D_a3U17y@j_az.net - 2021-06-22 07:14 +0000
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-06-22 13:49 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-06-22 08:03 +0000
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2021-06-22 01:28 -0700
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-06-23 06:19 +0000
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2021-06-23 04:18 -0700
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-06-21 12:39 +0000
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-15 08:01 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2021-06-15 08:12 -0400
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-15 15:34 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2021-06-15 17:37 -0400
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-16 02:17 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2021-06-15 21:11 -0400
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-16 07:09 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2021-06-16 06:37 -0400
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-16 13:01 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2021-06-16 08:16 -0400
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-16 15:35 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2021-06-16 17:40 -0400
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-16 13:40 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-06-16 18:10 +0300
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-06-16 14:37 +0300
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-06-16 15:04 +0000
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-16 17:37 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2021-06-16 17:40 -0400
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-16 16:25 -0700
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2021-06-16 23:17 -0400
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-17 09:22 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? MrSpook_e0mt@hszpo62mi.com - 2021-06-17 08:31 +0000
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-17 07:11 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2021-06-17 09:24 -0400
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-17 16:43 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2021-06-13 08:11 -0400
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2021-06-13 08:10 -0400
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-12 14:01 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-12 15:34 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2021-06-13 13:01 +1200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2021-06-13 07:39 -0700
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bo Persson <bo@bo-persson.se> - 2021-06-12 10:51 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-12 11:03 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bo Persson <bo@bo-persson.se> - 2021-06-12 13:07 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-12 13:22 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2021-06-12 08:52 -0400
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-06-10 16:51 -0700
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-11 09:52 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-11 13:17 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-11 13:45 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-11 13:54 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-11 15:58 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-11 16:35 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-06-11 17:11 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-11 17:12 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2021-06-11 21:15 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bo Persson <bo@bo-persson.se> - 2021-06-11 21:58 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-12 04:11 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2021-06-11 06:55 -0400
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-11 13:19 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-10 16:51 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? MrSpook_sw@08_cl170xu11o4f8xcg45.co.uk - 2021-06-10 15:25 +0000
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-06-10 18:18 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-06-10 22:40 +0300
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2021-06-10 22:35 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-06-11 09:23 +0300
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bo Persson <bo@bo-persson.se> - 2021-06-11 12:02 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-06-11 03:05 -0700
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-06-11 03:22 -0700
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2021-06-11 12:25 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? MrSpook_4421gcxq@fceufv2.ac.uk - 2021-06-11 11:39 +0000
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? MrSpook_3wcC2u9@cns8.net - 2021-06-11 10:18 +0000
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-06-11 03:27 -0700
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? MrSpook_4bkzrb03@tu45utvus6nuc.tv - 2021-06-11 10:17 +0000
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-06-11 13:22 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? MrSpook_0nG@p900whw6_n8r7ovwuul.ac.uk - 2021-06-11 11:34 +0000
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-06-11 14:14 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? MrSpook_p_5Ko4g@21yhpi_n4fck_wfz.org - 2021-06-11 12:50 +0000
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? MrSpook_0sk4i3p@b1km5k73i1.edu - 2021-06-11 09:24 +0000
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-06-11 14:18 +0300
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Bo Persson <bo@bo-persson.se> - 2021-06-11 11:59 +0200
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? MrSpook_jyc2xeWf9@aw55u6.gov - 2021-06-11 10:17 +0000
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? MrSpook_3dnim@5ooodqy.co.uk - 2021-06-11 09:19 +0000
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-06-11 14:26 +0300
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? MrSpook_35@s879vvmwpgee7rpqv.net - 2021-06-11 11:38 +0000
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-06-11 15:14 +0300
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? MrSpook_uQjuVe@5szcyauh_pjzi228wvwn.info - 2021-06-11 12:52 +0000
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-06-11 16:37 +0300
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? MrSpook_9fpRQm@i1z834r.net - 2021-06-11 14:58 +0000
Re: Why does vector::reserve() not grow exponentially ? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-06-11 17:06 +0200
Page 5 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 13 Next page →
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-16 10:35 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sacd4v$8ej$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #80425 |
On 16/06/2021 06:33, Juha Nieminen wrote: <snip for brevity> > > People love to complain about how such new features "make the language > too complicated". They fail to see *why* these features were added: > To actually make *using* the language simpler. To replace the ugly > complicated hacks that were in common use in C++98 that were not only > complicated to use, but also resulted in complicated source code that's > hard to read and understand. > > People also love to complain that new features require programmers to have > to learn more. Yet, the average C++ programmer doesn't even fully understand > the entirety of C++98 either (see SFINAE, for example), yet they don't have > much of a problem in writing C++ programs. It's not about knowing the > entirety of the language. It's about having the tools to do what you need > when you need them. > I agree with a lot of what you wrote here. C++ has been changing significantly. Many of the new features make the language simpler to use, to do the things people previously did in complex ways. A fine example is the "safe boolean idiom". It used to be ridiculously complicated with conversions via pointer types and the rest of the package. Now you just write "explicit operator bool" - simple, clear, safe and easy. You used to write complicated enable_if and SFINAE stuff - now you use "if constexpr" and concepts. You used to use templates as their own ugly, slow and limited compile-time programming language - now you use constexpr, and soon constinit and consteval. These are things people use in real code. Not everyone uses them, but some people do. There is also plenty of stuff in newer C++ that is hard for people to comprehend - there is too much, and some of it is too weird. But much of it is not for the normal application programmer - it is for the library programmer. Most people want to just /use/ std::vector, std::optional and the rest of it - it's usually only the people who /implement/ these that need the ugly details of perfect forwarding and whatever else is new. I currently use C++17 (with gcc extensions). This is embedded programming - I don't use much of the standard library, but I do use std::optional. I use "if constexpr" and inline variables. From C++14 I use return type deduction, more general constexpr functions, binary literals with digit separators. From C++11 - well, basically I didn't consider C++ to give me much beyond C until C++11 was a realistic choice. When C++20 is ready I will be using concepts, constinit and consteval (the more that is done at compile time, the better). I'll use modules when I can. As soon as contracts, reflection and metaclasses make it to the language, I'll be using them too. And there is /lots/ that I will have no use for - but other people will. (This is a concept many seem to find difficult.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-16 11:18 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sacfku$o6n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #80427 |
On 16/06/2021 11:04, MrSpook_3_fdyox@sg5nvjmv741xbigdp6.info wrote: > On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 10:35:42 +0200 > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >> And there is /lots/ that I will have no use for - but other people will. >> (This is a concept many seem to find difficult.) > > That however is the problem. The language is so big now its not realistic to > expect a developer to know all of it never mind know all of it well enough to > use. Most modern languages, along with their standard libraries, are too big for a developer to know it all. People regularly refer to Python as a language that is easy to learn and use - how many Python users understand metaclasses, __slots__, generators, decorators? I would not expect it to be even 1% of people who program in Python regularly. Yet they are very useful features to have in the language for those that need them, and very useful for people to use indirectly via libraries. Similarly, no one has the full Python standard library in their heads. How many POSIX programmers can say they know all of POSIX? How many Windows programmers know all of the Windows API? Being a big language (or standard library) is only a problem if the amount you need to understand to work reasonably effectively is intractable. > Yet company A will use a certain subset of C++, company B will use > another, company C yet another and so on, and in their interview process will > expect candidates knowledge to intersect with their use case. If it doesn't > they may well dismiss a very good developer because he didn't know some obscure > features of the language he could pick up in a few hours of learning anyway. > > And yes, it has happened to me. > That is a problem with interviewers, not the language. There have been bad interviewers and bad hiring processes from long before C++ existed, and there always will be.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | MrSpook_u_kch7_3@abbbp5z5c0iw8rwgxg4.gov |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-16 09:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sacgjj$rd5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #80429 |
On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 11:18:21 +0200 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >On 16/06/2021 11:04, MrSpook_3_fdyox@sg5nvjmv741xbigdp6.info wrote: >> On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 10:35:42 +0200 >> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >>> And there is /lots/ that I will have no use for - but other people will. >>> (This is a concept many seem to find difficult.) >> >> That however is the problem. The language is so big now its not realistic to >> expect a developer to know all of it never mind know all of it well enough >to >> use. > >Most modern languages, along with their standard libraries, are too big >for a developer to know it all. People regularly refer to Python as a I'd suggest its fairly easy to know C (minus libraries) in its entirety. >language that is easy to learn and use - how many Python users >understand metaclasses, __slots__, generators, decorators? I would not I'd be surprised if an experienced python programmer didn't know about generators (fancy name for co-routines) or decorators. >> And yes, it has happened to me. >> > >That is a problem with interviewers, not the language. There have been >bad interviewers and bad hiring processes from long before C++ existed, >and there always will be. The size of C++ makes it ever easier. And its not just interviewers - a lot of companies use online tests which always seem to include questions on the latest and greaters features of the language. (Plus the obligatory multiple inheritence questions even though almost no one uses it).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-16 11:53 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sachn8$609$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #80432 |
On 16/06/2021 11:34, MrSpook_u_kch7_3@abbbp5z5c0iw8rwgxg4.gov wrote: > On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 11:18:21 +0200 > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >> On 16/06/2021 11:04, MrSpook_3_fdyox@sg5nvjmv741xbigdp6.info wrote: >>> On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 10:35:42 +0200 >>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >>>> And there is /lots/ that I will have no use for - but other people will. >>>> (This is a concept many seem to find difficult.) >>> >>> That however is the problem. The language is so big now its not realistic to >>> expect a developer to know all of it never mind know all of it well enough >> to >>> use. >> >> Most modern languages, along with their standard libraries, are too big >> for a developer to know it all. People regularly refer to Python as a > > I'd suggest its fairly easy to know C (minus libraries) in its entirety. Sure (though there are subtle points that often elude people). But C is not a modern language. I am not suggesting that there are no simple languages, merely that C++ is far from being unique amongst large languages - and that people use similarly large languages all the time. > >> language that is easy to learn and use - how many Python users >> understand metaclasses, __slots__, generators, decorators? I would not > > I'd be surprised if an experienced python programmer didn't know about > generators (fancy name for co-routines) or decorators. People use generators, iterators and decorators - they rarely define their own. > >>> And yes, it has happened to me. >>> >> >> That is a problem with interviewers, not the language. There have been >> bad interviewers and bad hiring processes from long before C++ existed, >> and there always will be. > > The size of C++ makes it ever easier. And its not just interviewers - a lot > of companies use online tests which always seem to include questions on the > latest and greaters features of the language. (Plus the obligatory multiple > inheritence questions even though almost no one uses it). > Again, it is not the language that is the problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | MrSpook_ge@ldwlviy1f9uwd19thc.gov |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-16 10:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sacj7f$4lr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #80434 |
On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 11:53:44 +0200 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >On 16/06/2021 11:34, MrSpook_u_kch7_3@abbbp5z5c0iw8rwgxg4.gov wrote: >> The size of C++ makes it ever easier. And its not just interviewers - a lot >> of companies use online tests which always seem to include questions on the >> latest and greaters features of the language. (Plus the obligatory multiple >> inheritence questions even though almost no one uses it). >> > >Again, it is not the language that is the problem. But it is - there's an awful lot of cruft thats been added to C++ that is of dubious use yet at some point you have to know about it. Its been a long long time since I looked at a problem and thought "I don't know how to solve that easily in C++". A lot of the compile time rubbish added recently seems like someones undergraduate compiler project rather than anything of use. Eg people here seem to like constexpr. Why? What problem does it solve? If you need to calculate a value just bloody calculate it yourself and hardcode it, you don't need the compiler to do it for you at compile time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-16 13:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sacm67$4oh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #80437 |
On 16/06/2021 12:19, MrSpook_ge@ldwlviy1f9uwd19thc.gov wrote: > On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 11:53:44 +0200 > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >> On 16/06/2021 11:34, MrSpook_u_kch7_3@abbbp5z5c0iw8rwgxg4.gov wrote: >>> The size of C++ makes it ever easier. And its not just interviewers - a lot >>> of companies use online tests which always seem to include questions on the >>> latest and greaters features of the language. (Plus the obligatory multiple >>> inheritence questions even though almost no one uses it). >>> >> >> Again, it is not the language that is the problem. > > But it is - there's an awful lot of cruft thats been added to C++ that is > of dubious use yet at some point you have to know about it. Its been a long > long time since I looked at a problem and thought "I don't know how to solve > that easily in C++". A lot of the compile time rubbish added recently seems > like someones undergraduate compiler project rather than anything of use. > > Eg people here seem to like constexpr. Why? What problem does it solve? If you > need to calculate a value just bloody calculate it yourself and hardcode it, > you don't need the compiler to do it for you at compile time. > To quote myself: """ And there is /lots/ that I will have no use for - but other people will. (This is a concept many seem to find difficult.) """
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | MrSpook_3_fdyox@sg5nvjmv741xbigdp6.info |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-16 09:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sacerr$f2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #80427 |
On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 10:35:42 +0200 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >And there is /lots/ that I will have no use for - but other people will. > (This is a concept many seem to find difficult.) That however is the problem. The language is so big now its not realistic to expect a developer to know all of it never mind know all of it well enough to use. Yet company A will use a certain subset of C++, company B will use another, company C yet another and so on, and in their interview process will expect candidates knowledge to intersect with their use case. If it doesn't they may well dismiss a very good developer because he didn't know some obscure features of the language he could pick up in a few hours of learning anyway. And yes, it has happened to me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-16 09:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sacfon$fhr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #80430 |
MrSpook_3_fdyox@sg5nvjmv741xbigdp6.info wrote: > On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 10:35:42 +0200 > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >>And there is /lots/ that I will have no use for - but other people will. >> (This is a concept many seem to find difficult.) > > That however is the problem. The language is so big now its not realistic to > expect a developer to know all of it never mind know all of it well enough to > use. As I commented in my post, C++ has *always* been so big, ever since C++98, that almost no C++ programmer fully knows the ins and outs of it. The thing is, you don't need to know all of it. I have been programming in C++ like 25 years, about 15 of them professionally, and to this day things like SFINAE are mostly a mystery to me. Only recently did I learn some basic usage of std::enable_if (which, while it was added to the standard library in C++11, it's fully compatible with C++98 and you can use it if you implement it there). But that's fine. It has never really been a problem. The main thing that's beneficial to a C++ programmer is knowing what different tools exist in the language, even if he has no knowledge about how to use them. When you encounter a situation which sounds like the tool could be useful for, you can then find out how to use it. > Yet company A will use a certain subset of C++, company B will use > another, company C yet another and so on, and in their interview process will > expect candidates knowledge to intersect with their use case. If it doesn't > they may well dismiss a very good developer because he didn't know some obscure > features of the language he could pick up in a few hours of learning anyway. > > And yes, it has happened to me. I wouldn't be surprised if the same is the case with almost any programming language being used in the industry, such as Java, C# and Python. They probably have their obscure corner cases that only a fraction of programmers know and use fluently.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Woodall <news001@woodall.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-16 09:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sachf3$cop$1@einstein.home.woodall.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #80427 |
On 2021-06-16, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > C++ has been changing significantly. Many of the new features make the > language simpler to use, to do the things people previously did in > complex ways. A fine example is the "safe boolean idiom". It used to > be ridiculously complicated with conversions via pointer types and the > rest of the package. Now you just write "explicit operator bool" - > simple, clear, safe and easy. You used to write complicated enable_if > and SFINAE stuff - now you use "if constexpr" and concepts. You used to > use templates as their own ugly, slow and limited compile-time > programming language - now you use constexpr, and soon constinit and > consteval. These are things people use in real code. Not everyone uses > them, but some people do. > > There is also plenty of stuff in newer C++ that is hard for people to > comprehend - there is too much, and some of it is too weird. But much > of it is not for the normal application programmer - it is for the > library programmer. Most people want to just /use/ std::vector, > std::optional and the rest of it - it's usually only the people who > /implement/ these that need the ugly details of perfect forwarding and > whatever else is new. > > I currently use C++17 (with gcc extensions). This is embedded > programming - I don't use much of the standard library, but I do use > std::optional. I use "if constexpr" and inline variables. From C++14 I > use return type deduction, more general constexpr functions, binary > literals with digit separators. From C++11 - well, basically I didn't > consider C++ to give me much beyond C until C++11 was a realistic choice. > > When C++20 is ready I will be using concepts, constinit and consteval > (the more that is done at compile time, the better). I'll use modules > when I can. > > As soon as contracts, reflection and metaclasses make it to the > language, I'll be using them too. > Great points and pretty close to my usage. I've never tried to implement the standard library and I'd not something I can imagine trying even in retirement although I accept it is probably a great way to really get to know the more esoteric bits of C++. > And there is /lots/ that I will have no use for - but other people will. > (This is a concept many seem to find difficult.) But here, I think, is where people's problems are, when you're on a huge code base with many developers, people use their own "pet feature" and you end up needing to understand far, far more than you would wish (or worse, end up guessing what code really does when you need to modify it and get it working by "coincidence" rather than by "understanding") I suffer this problem with python in particular, I use quite a lot of python as glue logic but I don't pretend to be a python developer. And the number of times someone "improves" something that I am then left having to google to understand exactly what is happening. I've been forced to learn a lot of python, but not because it's useful to me or I will ever need it, but merely because someone else wanted to use a feature rather than something that looks like what a C++ developer would write.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-16 13:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sacmeo$85v$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #80433 |
On 16/06/2021 11:49, Tim Woodall wrote: > On 2021-06-16, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >> C++ has been changing significantly. Many of the new features make the >> language simpler to use, to do the things people previously did in >> complex ways. A fine example is the "safe boolean idiom". It used to >> be ridiculously complicated with conversions via pointer types and the >> rest of the package. Now you just write "explicit operator bool" - >> simple, clear, safe and easy. You used to write complicated enable_if >> and SFINAE stuff - now you use "if constexpr" and concepts. You used to >> use templates as their own ugly, slow and limited compile-time >> programming language - now you use constexpr, and soon constinit and >> consteval. These are things people use in real code. Not everyone uses >> them, but some people do. >> >> There is also plenty of stuff in newer C++ that is hard for people to >> comprehend - there is too much, and some of it is too weird. But much >> of it is not for the normal application programmer - it is for the >> library programmer. Most people want to just /use/ std::vector, >> std::optional and the rest of it - it's usually only the people who >> /implement/ these that need the ugly details of perfect forwarding and >> whatever else is new. >> >> I currently use C++17 (with gcc extensions). This is embedded >> programming - I don't use much of the standard library, but I do use >> std::optional. I use "if constexpr" and inline variables. From C++14 I >> use return type deduction, more general constexpr functions, binary >> literals with digit separators. From C++11 - well, basically I didn't >> consider C++ to give me much beyond C until C++11 was a realistic choice. >> >> When C++20 is ready I will be using concepts, constinit and consteval >> (the more that is done at compile time, the better). I'll use modules >> when I can. >> >> As soon as contracts, reflection and metaclasses make it to the >> language, I'll be using them too. >> > > Great points and pretty close to my usage. I've never tried to implement > the standard library and I'd not something I can imagine trying even in > retirement although I accept it is probably a great way to really get to > know the more esoteric bits of C++. > >> And there is /lots/ that I will have no use for - but other people will. >> (This is a concept many seem to find difficult.) > > But here, I think, is where people's problems are, when you're on a huge > code base with many developers, people use their own "pet feature" and > you end up needing to understand far, far more than you would wish (or > worse, end up guessing what code really does when you need to modify it > and get it working by "coincidence" rather than by "understanding") That can certainly be a problem - but it is a general development and team problem rather than a language specific problem. Even if the programming language doesn't have unusual and rarely used features (and which language doesn't? Hands up those C experts who know what the "static" in "void bar(int a[static 10]);" is doing?), people will find unusual ways to express things. And it is best solved by reading each other's code, talking together, and sharing information. > > I suffer this problem with python in particular, I use quite a lot of > python as glue logic but I don't pretend to be a python developer. And > the number of times someone "improves" something that I am then left > having to google to understand exactly what is happening. I've been > forced to learn a lot of python, but not because it's useful to me or I > will ever need it, but merely because someone else wanted to use a > feature rather than something that looks like what a C++ developer would > write. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | MrSpook_G1Sw6pdcqz@5a69.edu |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-16 11:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sacn3t$205$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #80443 |
On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 13:14:31 +0200 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >which language doesn't? Hands up those C experts who know what the >"static" in "void bar(int a[static 10]);" is doing?), people will find Hand up. What does it do? Or is it simply the same as static int because the compiler doesn't care about certain syntax order, the same way that a[0] and 0[a] are equivalent?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-16 14:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sacrmf$bbe$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #80444 |
On 16/06/2021 13:25, MrSpook_G1Sw6pdcqz@5a69.edu wrote: > On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 13:14:31 +0200 > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >> which language doesn't? Hands up those C experts who know what the >> "static" in "void bar(int a[static 10]);" is doing?), people will find > > Hand up. What does it do? Or is it simply the same as static int because > the compiler doesn't care about certain syntax order, the same way that a[0] > and 0[a] are equivalent? > "void bar(int a[static 10]);" means "bar" can only be called with a pointer to an array of at least 10 int's. The compiler can optimise the implementation based on that, or warn if the function is called in a way that violates this (for example, with a null pointer). It's a fairly obscure usage, and I think few C programmers will know about it even if they have long experience of the language. I can't say it is a feature I have ever thought to use. You could use: void foo(int a[static 1]); as a portable alternative to gcc's void foo(int * a) __attribute__((nonull)); However, I would say that gcc's syntax is a lot clearer (assuming, of course, you are using a compiler that accepts it).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-16 14:44 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sacrnm$bbe$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #80450 |
On 16/06/2021 14:43, David Brown wrote: > On 16/06/2021 13:25, MrSpook_G1Sw6pdcqz@5a69.edu wrote: >> On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 13:14:31 +0200 >> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >>> which language doesn't? Hands up those C experts who know what the >>> "static" in "void bar(int a[static 10]);" is doing?), people will find >> >> Hand up. What does it do? Or is it simply the same as static int because >> the compiler doesn't care about certain syntax order, the same way that a[0] >> and 0[a] are equivalent? >> > > > "void bar(int a[static 10]);" means "bar" can only be called with a > pointer to an array of at least 10 int's. The compiler can optimise the > implementation based on that, or warn if the function is called in a way > that violates this (for example, with a null pointer). > > It's a fairly obscure usage, and I think few C programmers will know > about it even if they have long experience of the language. I can't say > it is a feature I have ever thought to use. You could use: > > void foo(int a[static 1]); > > as a portable alternative to gcc's > > void foo(int * a) __attribute__((nonull)); > > However, I would say that gcc's syntax is a lot clearer (assuming, of > course, you are using a compiler that accepts it). > I forgot to mention - AFAIK, the "void foo(int a[static 1])" syntax does not exist for C++.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | MrSpook_g3w@2ur2yrijxtw7d3jt394yu9dp.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-16 13:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sacvfa$6l3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #80451 |
On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 14:44:37 +0200 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >On 16/06/2021 14:43, David Brown wrote: >> It's a fairly obscure usage, and I think few C programmers will know >> about it even if they have long experience of the language. I can't say >> it is a feature I have ever thought to use. You could use: >> >> void foo(int a[static 1]); >> >> as a portable alternative to gcc's >> >> void foo(int * a) __attribute__((nonull)); >> >> However, I would say that gcc's syntax is a lot clearer (assuming, of >> course, you are using a compiler that accepts it). >> > >I forgot to mention - AFAIK, the "void foo(int a[static 1])" syntax does >not exist for C++. Is it C99?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-16 16:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sad0ij$eoe$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #80460 |
On 16/06/2021 15:48, MrSpook_g3w@2ur2yrijxtw7d3jt394yu9dp.org wrote: > On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 14:44:37 +0200 > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >> On 16/06/2021 14:43, David Brown wrote: >>> It's a fairly obscure usage, and I think few C programmers will know >>> about it even if they have long experience of the language. I can't say >>> it is a feature I have ever thought to use. You could use: >>> >>> void foo(int a[static 1]); >>> >>> as a portable alternative to gcc's >>> >>> void foo(int * a) __attribute__((nonull)); >>> >>> However, I would say that gcc's syntax is a lot clearer (assuming, of >>> course, you are using a compiler that accepts it). >>> >> >> I forgot to mention - AFAIK, the "void foo(int a[static 1])" syntax does >> not exist for C++. > > Is it C99? > Yes, I believe so.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | MrSpook_74D@ov88_wt8h.co.uk |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-16 13:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sacvr2$cdo$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #80450 |
On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 14:43:59 +0200
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>On 16/06/2021 13:25, MrSpook_G1Sw6pdcqz@5a69.edu wrote:
>It's a fairly obscure usage, and I think few C programmers will know
>about it even if they have long experience of the language. I can't say
>it is a feature I have ever thought to use. You could use:
>
> void foo(int a[static 1]);
>
>as a portable alternative to gcc's
>
> void foo(int * a) __attribute__((nonull));
>
>However, I would say that gcc's syntax is a lot clearer (assuming, of
>course, you are using a compiler that accepts it).
Just tried this with gcc 8.3.0:
void func(int a[static 10])
{
}
int main()
{
int a[5];
func(a);
return 0;
}
Compiles without errors or warnings even with -Wall -pedantic -Wextra -std=c99
which is obviously not whats intended. Presumably implemented only in the
parser, not the core compiler.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-16 19:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sadduv$irm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #80458 |
On 16/06/2021 15:54, MrSpook_74D@ov88_wt8h.co.uk wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 14:43:59 +0200
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> On 16/06/2021 13:25, MrSpook_G1Sw6pdcqz@5a69.edu wrote:
>> It's a fairly obscure usage, and I think few C programmers will know
>> about it even if they have long experience of the language. I can't say
>> it is a feature I have ever thought to use. You could use:
>>
>> void foo(int a[static 1]);
>>
>> as a portable alternative to gcc's
>>
>> void foo(int * a) __attribute__((nonull));
>>
>> However, I would say that gcc's syntax is a lot clearer (assuming, of
>> course, you are using a compiler that accepts it).
>
> Just tried this with gcc 8.3.0:
>
> void func(int a[static 10])
> {
> }
>
>
> int main()
> {
> int a[5];
> func(a);
> return 0;
> }
>
>
> Compiles without errors or warnings even with -Wall -pedantic -Wextra -std=c99
> which is obviously not whats intended. Presumably implemented only in the
> parser, not the core compiler.
>
clang warns here, gcc does not. It's a case of clang being a little
better and more helpful at the static analysis in this case. The C
syntax provides compilers with an opportunity to warn you, but does not
require them to do so.
You could file this as a bug in gcc if you like (it's a missing feature,
rather than a bug, but it goes in the same bugzilla list).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-16 13:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sactgg$175u$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #80443 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> That can certainly be a problem - but it is a general development and
> team problem rather than a language specific problem. Even if the
> programming language doesn't have unusual and rarely used features (and
> which language doesn't? Hands up those C experts who know what the
> "static" in "void bar(int a[static 10]);" is doing?), people will find
> unusual ways to express things. And it is best solved by reading each
> other's code, talking together, and sharing information.
C (and thus usually also C++) can indeed have some weird features that
aren't widely known even by experienced programmers. For example, I would
bet that quite a large portion of C (and C++) programmers would think
this is invalid and doesn't compile:
int i = 3;
int j = i["hello"];
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-16 10:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <sad2cq$p5d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #80443 |
On 6/16/21 7:14 AM, David Brown wrote: ... > team problem rather than a language specific problem. Even if the > programming language doesn't have unusual and rarely used features (and > which language doesn't? Hands up those C experts who know what the > "static" in "void bar(int a[static 10]);" is doing?), Hand up!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-16 19:58 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sade3g$irm$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #80462 |
On 16/06/2021 16:38, James Kuyper wrote: > On 6/16/21 7:14 AM, David Brown wrote: > ... >> team problem rather than a language specific problem. Even if the >> programming language doesn't have unusual and rarely used features (and >> which language doesn't? Hands up those C experts who know what the >> "static" in "void bar(int a[static 10]);" is doing?), > > Hand up! > I bet /you/ read the challenge correctly, and are raising your hand because you /do/ know what it means - unlike Mr Spook who raised his hand because he /doesn't/ know. Still, that gave me the excuse to give the answer - which I must have got right, otherwise you'd have corrected me by now :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web