CppCon 2015: Herb Sutter "Writing Good C++14... By Default" 

Benjamin Rood I couldn't say, since I am yet to listen to many of the C++ guys, but he sure is a great one! :-)

+Vile Lasagna Same x_x

+Vile Lasagna I think he said "pointer" once.

In another video he also talked about stuhduh instead of std

He does that in this one too ^ ^

He wanted to rhyme sutter with putter

If you use a modern IDE, it always tell you what's the type is just by having the mouse on the variable name.

reinterpret_cast is often wrongly used to convert "pointer to T" to "pointer to U" when T and U are "unrelated types" (e.g. char and unsigned char) and static_cast does not seem enough, but in fact static_cast really is enough: const U *pointer_to_const_U = static_cast (static_cast (pointer_to_const_T)); I believe reinterpret_cast remains useful for converting pointers to integrals (e.g. of type std::uintptr_t or std::size_t) and... anything else, anyone ? (-:

No, f(sp) could potentially invalidate global pointer, no it's data. If we change global_sp to new pointer value, any local copy of it is unaffected. So local sp pointing to original global_sp location, no problem at all.

We all know very well what he meant -- a reference to const --, so we can mentally substitute. This is 90-minute talk with a thousand details. Some typos sneak in. But the meaning is clear.

Good question, of someone discover please tell us

You are a university student I presume?

It was about trying to convert a temporary value (also called: r-value. A variable without a name.) to a reference (also called: l-value reference). C++ doesn't support that. Why doesn't C++ support it? Because the temporary (r-value) is by default const. eg func("Hello world");

Yes, certainly. In Linux, one can use Virtual Machine to run Windows with the wonderful Windows applications such as Visual C++. He. He, he, he.

+MaidePlays So its upping the count by 1 to keep things alive. Is this a threading issue?

+MaidePlays I dont remember the code.

***** Ok i remember the code. So what's the fix that Herb suggests for this dangling pointer problem? Surely any new shared ptrs put in will also point to the same ptr?

***** A copy of the shared Ptr I remember.

Ok - I tried your sample code and as you say it works. Thanks!

+Lothar Scholz multiple return values? Return a struct with multiple members?

Karl Hatteland But struct splitting to put the values into variables or pass two result values into another function as 2 seperate arguments is not possible without built in compiler support. Yes it is all Syntax Candy and there is a way around it, i know, but then i could also use C and Brainfuck.

return a tuple, and use std::tie to assign to variables in the calling scope

en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/structured_binding

(-_-) why? auto is so useful... oh u are talking about auto keyword in C++98.. yeah, that indeed eats part of one's soul.

it's like "var": I don't really know what's going on here so I'll just leave it for the runtime/type checker to figure out. Also it promotes laziness.

Wait what ? auto has nothing to do with runtime ...

Have you thought that… well, maybe code is a bit cleaner if you use auto instead of std::vector::const_iterator? Writing short and readable code isn't a sign of laziness, it's a sign of being a good developer.

auto is compile time not runtime. It's not about laziness, it allows much easier refactoring amongst other things. How many libraries I've used where people do something like (int i =0; i < xx.size(); i++) { be_lazy(); } where size() returns a size_t, the compiler then throws a signed / unsigned mismatch warning, can easily be avoided with auto, it's still obvious what you are doing, and if the xx type gets swapped for something where size() returns a signed type, using auto means still no warning. It also prevents copies/conversions of objects where the declared type is mismatched to the assigned value type.

+Paul Orekhov It's safe and VERY fast (much unlike Java...)

+Milo Turner that is complete bullshit.

***** I would, I just don't understand why they have to make C++ so complex, the only thing I like about it is the STL, that's it.

+Mariano c++ is hardly just object oriented. when they add variants it will be just as functional your average fpl

***** because of C++'s history of backwards compatibility, it occupies a niche filled but few other languages. C++ is already widely adapted; rather than being replaced, it is being evolved (whether you like it or not). Most new features aim to replace older, worse features. These features are retained as to not break the large amount of software built on C++; C++ does not have the luxury of quickly deprecating features. Talks like these aim to show how to fully utilize the newer features so that in the future the worse features may be "phased out"

Not feeling like that at all, to be honest. Also, I'm rarely inclined to people dummies for their mistakes, even though I'd be in a pretty good position to do that. After all, nobody can click on my RU-vid-nick to look up a list of the last 20 bugs I fixed in my private code before committing it to some repository, to see if he, in hindsight, could call *me* a dummy. Also, I think I have different opinions on what constitutes "smarties". Devising or adapting an algorithm to solve an actual problem is an exercise that actually requires intelligence. Typing those ideas into some text editor is the least "smart" part of the whole activity. Finding a formal error in memory allocation/deletion doesn't require intelligence and the talk proofs that because they were able to create tools to do that. Wasting the focus and capacity of an intelligent mind on that would be a real dumb thing to do. C++ should not be a language that requires smart people who want to get actual hard problems solved (like mathematical problems) to do dumb exercises like reading to thousands of lines to look for memory allocation errors. Because that would make C++ a bad tool. I am happy to see that C++ is becoming a better tool through the great work of people like Sutter and Stroustrup, a tool that allows smart people to get work done effectively, without having to waste their time by gaining hours of experience in questions like "How do I map this list of several hundreds of compiler errors pointing to header-files, I've not even written, to find the single slip I made when using some template?". The tools should help them to use their time more efficiently.

Caydn Lofton exactly what I was thinking. lots of hand holding going on here. not trying to be a spoil sport, it just looks to me to be some bunch of standardising and simplification that might make harder to explain or requiring loads of commenting. as long as they don't actively remove older C++ standards and pointer arithmetic in the future, it's cool but once they start to over it all, that's when it might get ugly, especially for game programmers.

Some Coder Its the age old question: freedom or safety? Freedom to build and design in whatever way is best, even if it takes longer to make sure the code is safe, or safety knowing that a language is there to save you even though it also limits you from exploring

Caydn Lofton if the limitations are kept at a minimum with the language allowing for both safe and risky options, then we can all have cake. Give people the options for both and low level interaction. I think that's what most people want anyway

Some Coder Have you heard of C#? :p haha C++ 11 is already very high level programming. But thats just my opinion