Thread

1. 112233 · 1790522632 · focus · HN ↗

   "This article was originally published in Polish in issue 4/2013" — a lot of excellent advice. Sad to see C++ have moved in last decade in a direction that makes writing efficient, simple low level code harder and harder :(

   1. fooblaster · 1790523813 · focus · HN ↗

      How? you can write exactly the same low level code today.

      1. AlotOfReading · 1790526086 · focus · HN ↗

         Shot in the dark, but maybe the OP is referring to the fact that these code conventions are explicitly discouraged by the C++ core guidelines. The SoA example falls afoul of the rule requiring T* to be used only for singular object pointers, for example.

         1. someonebaggy · 1790580875 · focus · HN ↗

            Core guidelines, and any other pattern document, should be downstream of working code, not upstream.

            1. AlotOfReading · 1790583626 · focus · HN ↗

               Okay? The point of the guidelines is to document principles the committee's thinks "good" C++ should follow, within the much larger universe of possible C++ code.

               1. 112233 · 1790598823 · focus · HN ↗

                  Yes? Instead, we have committee declaring large bodies of existing code invalid and non-conformant, because it does not fit their spherical cow C++. You would think, with amount of no-exceptions and no-rtti code out there, and feature being present in most compilers for decades, they would take a hint and reflect actual usage in their standard? No, why would they. Any C++ that has no exceptions, rtti or std:: namespace is invalid. Not even against guidelines.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.