> > The bitwise OR operator, descending multiple namespaces.
> > It makes my point. That these very common functional programming paradigms
> > (map, reduce, etc) are (needlessly?) obtuse in C++.
>
> Sorry, what is the point? Is it hard to read, write, teach, learn,
> understand, extend...? What is the baseline we're comparing it against?
D) All the above. I didn't understand it when I first read it and I would say I
"know" C++ beyond the 50th percentile of people claiming to "know" C++. I'm
sure others won't either. Can we get a vote on who understood exactly what that
statement was the first time they read it? The baseline I'm comparing it
against is Python or JavaScript.
> > Further more, my point is made again with this talk about C++2a. It's
> > something that can be done now, but i shouldn't have to wait, Qt can
> > implement these however it can today and move to ranges when available.
>
> A bit too convenient to just ask someone else to do a _lot_ of work for
> you... anyhow, you don't have to wait:
>
> > https://github.com/ericniebler/range-v3
>
> And again, why should Qt invest precious development bandwidth
> reinventing half-cooked solutions for problems solved in an excellent
> way elsewhere? As I said in the other thread, not using C++-latest costs
> _you_ more. It shouldn't cost anything for Qt.
The value proposition of Qt is that it simplifies a lot of things. If we're
going to fall back on "std all the things" then Qt (pronounced "Cute", which I
think has meaning here) loses a lot of value prop and I should just switch to
C++-without-Qt or Python. It is my observation that C++ is becoming a language
to not write programs in, but to instruct compilers on how to build your
program. (Maybe this is role QML is filling?) If I have to dedicate hours per
week to maintaining my C++latest skills (which is futile absent a useful case
in my own code base) then that negatively impacts my perception of Qt. Which is
frankly irrelevant anyway because my code needs to be readable **by other
people**. I don't know why C++ enthusiasts are so hostile to newcomers,
effectively raising the barrier to entry. This plays out in non-abstract terms.
C++ is the fastest declining language at TIOBE (
https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/ ) over the past 10 years. There were no
positive spikes aro
und each C++0x release. This stuff is being added and it's not attracting
users. Meanwhile Python is fastest increasing (at this time, it's Java, C, C++,
Python, VB.NET) (I do think JavaScript is under-reported, as the web is not
getting off JS anytime soon)
Let's look at Python's map/filter/reduce (
http://book.pythontips.com/en/latest/map_filter.html )
items = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
squared =map(lambda x: x**2, items)
less_than_zero = filter(lambda x: x < 0, items)
product = reduce((lambda x, y: x * y), items)
They are clear and readable. What are the C++0x equivalents? (I'm really
asking)
Excellent doesn't mean anything if it isn't accessible. Qt should invest for
the benefit of its users because the C++ std methods are obtuse. If you have Qt
class, you already know and have a lot lot of control about how the container
works.
_______________________________________________
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest