An include with a HTTP URL is a scary abomination straight put of hell. Please tell me that this is a compiler explorer specialty (which would still be cursed, but in a cool way) and not a GCC feature (which would be an absolute nightmare).
Yes, it's a Compiler Explorer feature. URL includes get rewritten client-side to work as if they were additional files supplied by the user. PR adding the current behavior is at [0], while I think the downloading code itself is at [1].
Yes. duck takes ownership of the vector by moving it into its internal storage.
As a bonus, if you tried passing in an lvalue, it will reject the input unless you add the "copyable" trait, so it ends up mitigating some hidden copies.
I see there's an issue in the tracker to get more accurate data, and since it's using an under dev feature in compilers, it's not going to be definitive, but any rough numbers?
I don't have any numbers, but it is pretty slow. You can try making some edits in Compiler Explorer to see for yourself (though that of course has some impact from network requests).
One reason is that, like you said, the feature is still new. Additionally I made pretty liberal use of the std::ranges library in my implementation which has notoriously bad compile times. That could be an area to improve upon.
Another may be a bit more structural. If you want to call myObj.foo() via reflection, you have to linearly search members_of(myObj) for the one named "foo", and then call that. Actual compilers I assume use some kind of hash table.
The hand-waving solution is "put it in a PCH", but I am hoping to put some more effort into optimizing build time here in the future.
This library tries its best to mitigate that, catching common errors and whatnot, but it can definitely still happen. C++ doesn't have full token injection yet, so it avoids some of the more common pitfalls, if incidentally.
As an aside, you may want to check out Jai's approach. I believe everything you generate statically gets turned into a file by the compiler for debugging purposes, which it provides references to in the output.
I don’t really like much about C++ anymore, but I still enjoy reading C++ articles and listening to C++ podcasts, and I would consider it beautiful. Oftentimes the things I dislike about it are also the beautiful things. The term “beautiful mess” seems appropriate.
It’s a bit like a well-kept Victorian home. The amount of work, money, and dealing with discomfort that goes into maintaining one isn’t something I really want to experience for myself. But the amount of skill and craftsmanship that it takes to preserve one is still impressive, and I have to appreciate the respect for history and the care that goes into balancing it with modern concerns.
And talking to people who do live the life is always a great learning experience.
The problem with that is best described by Antoine de Sain-Exupery's saying "perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." I guess the same goes for elegance and grace...
C++ is in the transitional phase where major bad things are being taken away very satisfactorily, usually by providing a simpler and more general replacement (for example, auto instead of long and pointless type declarations or modern initialization protecting against implicit conversions and surprise constructor overloads), but most progress of elegance and grace come from new features that enable something traditionally terrible or impossible (for example the gradual generalization of templates, culminating with concepts, the gradual extension of constexpr, consteval etc, and the new reflection).
I find it hard to see a language as beautiful that’s grown too complex for a single person to hold a complete mental model of.
I used to think that was a personal limitation, until I saw an interview with Bjarne explaining that he used to understand all of it but at this point it’s too big, no one can anymore.
That is exactly what I was thinking. I was a seasoned C++ programmer and always loved reading articles like this. I can't imagine I will every write my own C++ code again -- or in any language. I now program with English specifications now and I am 10000% times more productive.
Some of us are professionals and like to understand our systems and how they work. I don't write assembly instructions by hand either, nor do I design CPUs much, but I want to - and likely need to - know how they work to make the best judgements.
Try it on Compiler Explorer: https://godbolt.org/z/91dj5jeGW
Check out the source code: https://github.com/RyanJK5/rjk-duck
An include with a HTTP URL is a scary abomination straight put of hell. Please tell me that this is a compiler explorer specialty (which would still be cursed, but in a cool way) and not a GCC feature (which would be an absolute nightmare).
Yes, it's a Compiler Explorer feature. URL includes get rewritten client-side to work as if they were additional files supplied by the user. PR adding the current behavior is at [0], while I think the downloading code itself is at [1].
[0]: https://github.com/compiler-explorer/compiler-explorer/pull/...
[1]: https://github.com/compiler-explorer/compiler-explorer/blob/...
in the first example:
```
10: rjk::duck<Container> c{std::vector<int>{1, 2, 3}};
11: c.size(); // 3
12:
13: c = std::string{"hello"};
```
Does the assignment on line 13 call the destrucor for the vector of ints created on line 10?
Yes. duck takes ownership of the vector by moving it into its internal storage.
As a bonus, if you tried passing in an lvalue, it will reject the input unless you add the "copyable" trait, so it ends up mitigating some hidden copies.
Well, you’ve certainly convinced me to read your library.
Thanks for the blog post.
No problem! Hope you enjoy :)
Is there another option? Or were you asking if it leaks memory?
Maybe you were asking if it implements custom destructors? GC?
> Or were you asking if it leaks memory?
yeah,
If variable c where of type void* instead of duck<Container>, the assignment on line 13 would leak the memory used by the vector<int>.
What's compilation time like when using it?
I see there's an issue in the tracker to get more accurate data, and since it's using an under dev feature in compilers, it's not going to be definitive, but any rough numbers?
I don't have any numbers, but it is pretty slow. You can try making some edits in Compiler Explorer to see for yourself (though that of course has some impact from network requests).
One reason is that, like you said, the feature is still new. Additionally I made pretty liberal use of the std::ranges library in my implementation which has notoriously bad compile times. That could be an area to improve upon.
Another may be a bit more structural. If you want to call myObj.foo() via reflection, you have to linearly search members_of(myObj) for the one named "foo", and then call that. Actual compilers I assume use some kind of hash table.
The hand-waving solution is "put it in a PCH", but I am hoping to put some more effort into optimizing build time here in the future.
Reflections, especially static ones, are horrible for debugging.
This library tries its best to mitigate that, catching common errors and whatnot, but it can definitely still happen. C++ doesn't have full token injection yet, so it avoids some of the more common pitfalls, if incidentally.
As an aside, you may want to check out Jai's approach. I believe everything you generate statically gets turned into a file by the compiler for debugging purposes, which it provides references to in the output.
Depends pretty much on the language and IDE tooling being used.
Those against IDEs, well they already voted against good tooling in first place.
this is the most disgusting programming language ever invented!
The things people describe as "beautiful" never cease to amaze me...
...but, as they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder!
I don’t really like much about C++ anymore, but I still enjoy reading C++ articles and listening to C++ podcasts, and I would consider it beautiful. Oftentimes the things I dislike about it are also the beautiful things. The term “beautiful mess” seems appropriate.
It’s a bit like a well-kept Victorian home. The amount of work, money, and dealing with discomfort that goes into maintaining one isn’t something I really want to experience for myself. But the amount of skill and craftsmanship that it takes to preserve one is still impressive, and I have to appreciate the respect for history and the care that goes into balancing it with modern concerns.
And talking to people who do live the life is always a great learning experience.
> I would consider it beautiful.
If there's something that C++ actually lacks, that's the elegance, grace and beauty. The rest, it's all already there or will be there shortly :)
I find C++ beautiful only when I come across simple, powerful things that use the minimal amount of advanced language features possible
The problem with that is best described by Antoine de Sain-Exupery's saying "perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." I guess the same goes for elegance and grace...
C++ is in the transitional phase where major bad things are being taken away very satisfactorily, usually by providing a simpler and more general replacement (for example, auto instead of long and pointless type declarations or modern initialization protecting against implicit conversions and surprise constructor overloads), but most progress of elegance and grace come from new features that enable something traditionally terrible or impossible (for example the gradual generalization of templates, culminating with concepts, the gradual extension of constexpr, consteval etc, and the new reflection).
> I would consider it beautiful
I had the same misunderstanding before I get to know CS. that was 30 years ago.
Beauty in C++ may be most similar to lipstick on a pig, but we try our best.
It's more like arranging pigs in beautiful patterns. If you don't look very closely, you don't see the pigs.
I admire you guy keep trying.
I'm also glad I do not write C++ on the daily anymore: luckily my software does not need that kind of performance characteristics.
I still reach for C++ on the backend. Honestly, with all its warts, I like it overall.
You can write pretty fast and reasonable code nowadays.
Yet I imagine your software depends on C++.
Either directly on top of a runtime/compiler written in C++, or as indirect dependency on a C++ compiler toolchain.
I find it hard to see a language as beautiful that’s grown too complex for a single person to hold a complete mental model of.
I used to think that was a personal limitation, until I saw an interview with Bjarne explaining that he used to understand all of it but at this point it’s too big, no one can anymore.
are we still hand writing code?
That is exactly what I was thinking. I was a seasoned C++ programmer and always loved reading articles like this. I can't imagine I will every write my own C++ code again -- or in any language. I now program with English specifications now and I am 10000% times more productive.
Good for you!
Some of us are professionals and like to understand our systems and how they work. I don't write assembly instructions by hand either, nor do I design CPUs much, but I want to - and likely need to - know how they work to make the best judgements.
I think you misunderstand -- I am still reading the article.