Brad Larson

174 posts

Brad Larson banner
Brad Larson

Brad Larson

@b_k_larson

Father, husband, software engineer

Overland Park, KS Katılım Ağustos 2017
22 Takip Edilen50 Takipçiler
Jason Turner
Jason Turner@lefticus·
OK C++ Twitter! I've asked you about your free software, and your commercial software choices. Now I have a really weird question! What piece of *hardware* is very important to you as a C++ developer?
English
117
12
135
0
Brad Larson
Brad Larson@b_k_larson·
@lefticus Drop the cruft! No more typedef, redo initializer lists, etc.
English
0
0
0
0
Jason Turner
Jason Turner@lefticus·
What do you most want from a C++ successor language?
English
85
1
37
0
Brad Larson
Brad Larson@b_k_larson·
@Booms_JustBooms 1. Yes they do, just not as clean. But I'm mostly wanting this for the appendAll() type API 2. I considered span<t>, wasn't sure about possible performance hits with non-vector backends? But span<> does have a size, so yeah I think it'd be fine.
English
1
0
0
0
Nathan Booms
Nathan Booms@Booms_JustBooms·
@b_k_larson For the first case, do push_back or emplace_back not have the desired behavior? For both, would an "append(T)" and "append(span<t>)" be appropriate? Seems like the operator+= would boil down to those calls in the naive case.
English
1
0
0
0
Brad Larson
Brad Larson@b_k_larson·
std::vector<T> should provide += T to append T and += std::vector<T> to append a full vector. So much cleaner than the 3-parameter insert()
English
1
0
0
0
Brad Larson retweetledi
Jason Turner
Jason Turner@lefticus·
I'm planning the first ever "C++ Best Practices Game Jam"! It will begin April 1st, 2022! github.com/cpp-best-pract… And I need your help to make sure it goes smoothly! (plz retweet for exposure) 👇👇👇
English
3
51
99
0
Brad Larson
Brad Larson@b_k_larson·
@lefticus @mattgodbolt Good point, that makes sense. I'm surprised the assembly is the same in arm - I didn't think about how the execution must be in x64. Using llabs in arm does produce different assembly
English
1
0
0
0
Jason Turner
Jason Turner@lefticus·
@craigw1701 Every C++ standard release deprecates and removes something, that's already a given anyhow
English
2
0
1
0
Jason Turner
Jason Turner@lefticus·
Do you think the C++ standards committee should intentionally break ABI in C++23?
English
27
2
30
0
Mike B
Mike B@skippytx·
@SwiftOnSecurity I can’t even find lower end kit in stock. Was going to build 3400g PCs for my kids. Gave up and ordered i3-10100 instead.
English
2
0
2
0
SwiftOnSecurity
SwiftOnSecurity@SwiftOnSecurity·
LinusTechTips gives up recommending high-end PC builds this holiday because there are no parts to buy period youtu.be/hW6_nX0g3to
YouTube video
YouTube
English
3
7
97
0
Jason Turner
Jason Turner@lefticus·
I think I now have a C++ Weekly episode for almost every C++ topic. So let's play a game! You respond with a topic/question, and I'll respond with an episode. The response with the most ❤️'s tomorrow at this same time will get a free digital C++ Best Practices book copy! 👇👇
English
75
6
94
0
Brad Larson retweetledi
Jon Weier (he/him)
Jon Weier (he/him)@jonweier·
This is by far my favourite "historical plaque" ever. It is truly spectacular.
Jon Weier (he/him) tweet media
English
138
3.2K
11.9K
0
Brad Larson
Brad Larson@b_k_larson·
@BramStolk @grujicbr @MrMadbrain ( Respectfully :) ) This sounds terrible. I want to include bar.h, so I need to go look up its dependencies to include foo.h first. But foo.h also has dependencies, so let me go look them up as well... I much prefer stand-alone headers.
English
0
0
1
0
Bram Stolk
Bram Stolk@BramStolk·
@grujicbr @MrMadbrain No it does not. You can embed foo in bar as composition, not pointer. In main.c you just need to include foo.h first, then bar.h Being explicit in deps for every .c you write is a good thing. Dependencies should be front and centre, not hidden. Explicit dep > Implicit dep.
English
2
0
0
0
Brad Larson
Brad Larson@b_k_larson·
@chandlerc1024 Does this include language-breaking changes? E.g. removing std::auto_ptr?
English
0
0
0
0
Chandler Carruth
Chandler Carruth@chandlerc1024·
2) Both software and language evolution "Change is the essential progress of all existence." -- Spock. Wait, you're still debating? ;] Seriously, things which do not change are replaced. C++ must enable both software and itself to change and grow.
English
2
0
12
0
Chandler Carruth
Chandler Carruth@chandlerc1024·
So I wrote up (with a *huge* amount of help from colleagues both at G and elsewhere) what I think the goals and priorities for C++ should be: wg21.link/p2137 Finally published. I'm not sure the committee agrees, but it is definitely what I and my users need. Highlights:
English
4
54
233
0
Chandler Carruth
Chandler Carruth@chandlerc1024·
5) Fast and scalable development Currently, we measure compile time in *minutes*. Seriously, MINUTES. I don't even know how that can be a thing. And the scaling problems are worse somehow. C++ Modules help, but are just the start.
English
3
1
24
0
Brad Larson
Brad Larson@b_k_larson·
@dascandy42 @normed_space I had a tablesaw accident back in November. I'm still finding blood splatters around my shop. I've since refused to use my tablesaw until I upgrade it to a sawstop.
English
0
0
0
0