|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |