>makes constructors and exceptions depend on each otherWhat was his endgame?
>>106960028It was to upset you. I don't mean "you" in general, I mean you specifically, OP. He succeeded and he will sit at the left hand of God for his work; Terry at the right.
>>106960028>makes constructors and exceptions depend on each otherok, and?
>>106960028how do exceptions depend on constructors?
>>106960176How do you construct an exception?
>>106960179throw 0;where's the constructor?
throw 0;
>>106960028just another stupid hack by Bjarne to try and make C++ appear usablehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OP_w_oEU1WkC++ is broken by design and best practices are just managing its inherently bad design
>>106960310it's invisible, like every fucked up thing in C++
>>106960344and thishttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xt1KNDmOYqA
>>106960350>it's invisibleit's not. there's no constructor here.
>>106960119POTD
>>106960493kek
>>106960179throw new YourMomException();what do you think this code does on c# or java? how do you expect to make an exception object without calling its constructor?
throw new YourMomException();
>>106961084Neither C# nor Java claim to have ”zero cost abstractions".
>>106961295where does c++ make that claim?
>>106961374https://www.stroustrup.com/ETAPS-corrected-draft.pdf>Foundations of C++ by Bjarne Stroustrup>Page 1-2:>The aim of C++ is to [...] allow a programmer to work at the highest feasible level of abstraction by providing: zero-overhead abstraction mechanisms
>>106961407>The aim of C++ is to help in classical systems programming tasks. It supports the use of light weight abstraction for resource-constrained and often mission-critical infrastructure applications.>By “light-weight abstraction,” I mean abstractions that do not impose space or time overheads in excess of what would be imposed by careful hand coding of a particular example of the abstraction.from your own source.also the wording from what you quoted implies it provides zero-overhead abstractions, not that all abstractions it provides are zero-overhead
>>106960785>no argumentlaugh away, retard>>106961084>what do you think this code does on c# or java?what do I care? we're talking C++ here and C++ primitives don't have constructors.
>>106961461>implies it provides zero-overhead abstractionsdoesn't imply, it's literally what's writtenand what's written is that it "supports use of light weight abstraction" and aims to "provide zero-overhead abstraction"the written claim is that the standard should be zero cost and that you can roll out your own abstractions with minimal overhead
>>106960028>What was his endgame?To minimize orthogonality between features and make a programming language that reflects the nature of reality itself.
>>106961494>>106961507retards
>>106961507That's your misinterpretation.
Java and C# obsoleted C++ for most kinds of programming decades ago. There's literally no reason to still be using it in 2025 unless you're working on an operating system kernel or device driver or something.
>>106961534And that's your disinterpretation.
>>106961461Exceptions have overhead even if you never use them.
>>106961575Exceptions and RTTI make Sepples infeasible for thosr domains as well.
>>106960028Unhatted Tim Pool??!
>>106961755they don't have any measurable overhead in modern compilers. it's not 2005 anymore, gramps.
>>106961781barney troutsoup
>>106962391so he is father of Tim Pool?
>>106961896Neither do actual high level languages.If you don't care about performance, why are you using Sepples?
>>106962555>If you don't care about performanceI do. it just has nothing to do with exceptions.
>>106962772You don't care about performance. You pretend to, but you never measure it nor do you look at the generated assembly.
>>106960119Hi, I'm the guy in the picture. You're right, that's the exact reason I did that shit. Have a good day!
>>106960028circular dependencies, yay.
>>106960028Why do people assume he has a high IQ?
>>106964196>no arguments>in desperation attempts psychic powerskek
