Let me see if I can say this in a few words. You study a language, C++ in this case, and they of course say "here is this very rudimentary programming problem, and look, here is how you solve it with templates." A student comes away thinking "every rudimentary problem, the answer is templates" and he ends up over-using templates. With some maturity of language experience one acquires better judgement.
Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Crayford Sent: Thursday, April 8, 2021 3:27 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Meta languages [was: RE: Assembler Language Programming for IBM System z Servers] On 6/04/2021 9:53 pm, Charles Mills wrote: >> You don't use templates > I certainly do use templates. Not sure how you get "don't use templates" from > what I wrote. Heck, I *over* used templates in the first large C++ project I > ever did, and boy, does that make a mess! Now I think I am down to a happy > medium. I don't see them as "competitive" (in a design sense) with macros. Overusing as in template meta-programming? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_metaprogramming The XL C++ compiler is withering on the vine. The word is that IBM don't the resources to keep it up to date with the current standards so the xlclang++ port of clang using the existing Toby back-end is the way to go. If you use PDS data sets for your source your SOL as it's z/OS UNIX only and only produces 64-bit modules. But what I find exciting is that IBM have stated their intentions to fully port LLVM/clang/libc[++] to z/OS without a reliance on LE so supervisor state programming in C++ will be a reality without the nightmare of LE ESPIE/ESTAE condition handlers. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
