alt Hacker NewsI was very curious to see what C++ 26 brings to the table, since I haven't used C++ in a while.
When I saw the 'no boilerplate' example, the very first thought that came to my mind:
This is the ugliest, most cryptic and confusing piece of code I've ever seen. Calling this 'no boilerplate' is an insult to the word 'boilerplate'.
Yeah, I can parse it for a minute or two and I mostly get it.
But if given the choice, I'd choose the C-macro implementation (which is 30+ years old) over this, every time. Or the good old switch case where I understand what's going on.
I understand that reflection is a powerful capability for C++, but the template-meta-cryptic-insanity is just too much to invite me back to this version of the language.
Replies
As a developer who doesn't really write C++ code I'm inclined to agree, but I think Herb Sutter's "syntax 2" project might provide a nice way out of that mess eventually.
I played around with cppfront over Christmas and it was a lot more ergonomic than my distant memories of C++11, which I don't even have negative memories of per se.
It is "cryptic" and "ugly" to you just because you're not familiar with it. You'd pick the macro-based implementation because you are familiar with it.
Seeing this argumentation is so tiresome, because it feels like there is a lack of self-awareness regarding what is "familiar" and what isn't, which is subconsciously translated to "ugly" and "bad".
> But if given the choice, I'd choose the C-macro implementation (which is 30+ years old) over this, every time.
Why? The implementation is not pretty, but you only need to write it once and then it works for all enums. The actual usage is trivial, it's just a function call.
The C macro version is horrendous in comparison. Why would I want to declare my enums like that just because I might want to print them?