• aaaaaaaaargh@feddit.org
    14·
    9 hours ago

    What!? constexpr is one of the best additions to C++ ever since. And I do like auto even though I get why some folks can’t stand it.

    • ulterno@programming.devEnglish
      0·
      15 minutes ago

      Yeah, it’s so good that reality is flaking at the edges because of using constexpr auto x = whatever().

  • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
    23·
    11 hours ago

    I don’t get it. What’s wrong with constexpr? It’s vastly preferable to macros due to type safety, and const due to compile-time optimization.

      • anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        2·
        10 hours ago

        Rust doesn’t allow type inference in function signatures, c++ does with auto. IIRC, they recommended against using it, because of -you guessed it- compile time.

        • RustyNova@lemmy.world
          3·
          9 hours ago

          I do love rust. But I do like making fun of it too.

          Although I don’t see how rust is immature? Unless I missed the joke?

            • calcopiritus@lemmy.world
              11·
              4 hours ago

              It’s more than 10 years old. It has stable syntax, big standard library, big library ecosystem, plenty of rust programs already in production.

              If by “evolving” you mean “changing”, I don’t think that is an issue at all. At most, they add features. They don’t change or remove. And with the editions system, it should be no issue.

              If by “evolving” you mean “improving”, then I don’t see how that could ever be an issue.