Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #83810

Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges"

From Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
Newsgroups comp.lang.c++
Subject Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges"
Date 2022-04-27 15:12 +0000
Organization Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID <t4bmhc$1c05$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References (1 earlier) <t48d7a$u9o$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t48epq$rh4$1@dont-email.me> <t48k16$7a5$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t4aud3$1euh$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t4avhr$am$1@gioia.aioe.org>

Show all headers | View raw

On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 08:40:29 -0000 (UTC)
Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote:
>Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 11:11:36 -0000 (UTC)
>> Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote:
>>>Alf P. Steinbach <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> The Ranges library adds not just an new huge API but another large 
>>>> domain specific language which results in very brittle code, and huge 
>>>> complexity, that maintenance programmers must deal with.
>>>
>>>So if you want the same functionality in your program it's preferable
>>>to implement it yourself, making it significantly less tested and thus
>>>less reliable, and probably even more "brittle" (whatever that means)?
>>>Also maintenance is probably going to only increase because your version
>>>will inevitably be buggy or lacking.
>> 
>> You seem to assume everyone apart from the C++ committee is an idiot and
>> can't write basic algorithms correctly.
>
>No. Most experienced programmers are pretty intelligent and smart, and
>most if not all of them make programming mistakes, even with the simplest
>of algorithms or tasks. Why do you think that testing (eg. unit testing)
>is such a huge deal in programming? Because programmers, no matter how
>intelligent, how smart, how experienced, how talented, make mistakes,
>even with the simplests of tasks.

Depends how many times they've done it before. I've lost count of the times
I had to write a doubly linked list in C back in the day and I could almost do 
it with my eyes closed now.

>One of the archetypal examples of this is implementing a binary search
>of a sorted array. Give this task to programmers and quite a surprising
>amount of them will implement it incorrectly (most typically making an
>off-by-one error).
>
>That's why, in general (unless there's a good reason not to), it's
>better to use std::lower_bound or std::binary_search instead of writing
>your own: The standard library implementation is pretty much guaranteed
>to be bug-free.
>
>Also, if you are reviewing code, maintaining code, writing unit tests for
>some code, you can safely skip having to check if that std::lower_bound
>actually works correctly. With a custom implementation you can't (and for
>good reason).
>
>And that's just with an algorithm as simple as a binary search. Consider
>much more complex algorithms (or data containers).

Thats why I said basic algorithms. I'm not suggesting everyone should
re-implement red-black trees themselves.

Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

"Performance of C++20's Ranges" Cholo Lennon <chololennon@hotmail.com> - 2022-04-26 01:13 -0300
  Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-26 09:15 +0000
    Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-04-26 09:27 +0000
      Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-04-26 16:29 +0200
        Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 18:45 -0700
    Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 11:42 +0200
      Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-04-26 11:11 +0000
        Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 13:31 +0200
        Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 06:46 -0700
        Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-27 08:20 +0000
          Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-04-27 08:40 +0000
            Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-27 15:12 +0000
              Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-04-27 16:09 +0000
                Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-27 16:21 +0000
                Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-04-29 16:15 -0700
                Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-30 16:00 +0000
            Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 19:03 +0200
          Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-04-27 11:12 -0400
            Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-04-28 06:45 +0000
      Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-04-27 06:30 +0000
        Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-04-28 23:57 +0200
          Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-04-29 06:07 +0000
        Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-04-29 16:28 -0700
          Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-05-02 05:01 +0000
            Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-05-10 07:36 -0700
    Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-04-26 11:28 -0400
      Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-04-26 18:13 +0200
      Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-26 16:24 +0000
        Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-04-26 12:48 -0400
    Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Cholo Lennon <chololennon@hotmail.com> - 2022-04-26 20:20 -0300
      Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-27 08:30 +0000
        Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-04-27 08:50 +0000
          Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 05:12 -0700
          Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-27 15:18 +0000
            Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 18:56 +0200
              Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-28 08:40 +0000
                Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-04-28 13:54 +0300
                Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 13:11 +0200
                Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-28 15:25 +0000
                Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 17:30 +0200
                Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-28 15:45 +0000
                Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 17:52 +0200
                Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-28 15:57 +0000
                Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 18:01 +0200
                Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-28 16:06 +0000
                Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 18:09 +0200
                Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-28 16:14 +0000
                Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 16:11 -0700
                Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 16:20 -0700
                Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-29 09:31 +0000
                Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-28 15:15 +0000
                Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 13:07 +0200
                Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-28 15:17 +0000
                Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 17:31 +0200
                Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-28 15:50 +0000
                Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 17:55 +0200
                Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-28 15:59 +0000
                Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 18:02 +0200
                Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-28 16:13 +0000
                Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 18:20 +0200
                Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-29 09:27 +0000
                Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-29 20:48 +0200
                Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-30 07:34 +0200
                Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-04-30 17:31 +0000
                Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-30 20:30 +0200
                Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-05-01 15:20 +0000
                Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 18:18 +0200
                Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-05-01 16:25 +0000
                Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-05-01 23:14 +0000
                Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 18:52 -0700
                Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-04-28 18:21 +0000
                Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-29 09:29 +0000
                Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-04-28 18:19 +0000
                Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 21:01 +0200
                Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 16:07 -0700
                Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-28 15:22 +0000
            Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-04-28 10:57 +0000
              Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-28 15:27 +0000
              Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> - 2022-04-28 09:26 -0700
        Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 17:07 +0200
          Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-27 15:54 +0000
            Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 18:35 +0200

csiph-web