On 02/25/2010 02:34 PM, Warp wrote:
>
>    On the other hand, it feels like in most of the "higher-level" languages
> these features are usually mutually incompatible with memory efficiency
> (and sometimes even speed).
>

I certainly agree, and I actually rather like the approach that C++ has 
taken for tasks where I do care about the efficiency.  But I can see 
where the "knife fight" analogy came from (perhaps a better related 
analogy if it weren't so obscure is using a urumi -- very effective but 
you'd better know what you're doing or else you'll end up hurting yourself).


>> Also, his quip about cryptic compile-time error messages is definitely
>> justified IMHO (at least as far as g++ goes).
>
>    If it's your first time compiling C++ programs with gcc, the error
> messages can be quite cryptic, but having used gcc for quite many years
> I can recognize all the relevant parts quite fast. It's rare to get
> messages I have hard time deciphering. (Usually you get quite far by
> simply skipping all the "instantiated from" lines.)
>

Hmmm, even with the my current version of g++ (4.4.1) I still find the 
error messages to be cryptic.  This isn't to say that I have trouble 
understanding them, but I feel like this is due to gaining skill at 
decrypting them and learning that when I see message "x" it probably was 
actually caused by mistake "y".  Perhaps it's just a difference in what 
we mean by "cryptic".  That said, I do think that there's some further 
evidence for the need for better error messages by the attempted 
introduction of concepts into the C++0x standard (even if they didn't 
make the final cut).

Post a reply to this message