this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2025
95 points (89.9% liked)

Programmer Humor

27101 readers
1416 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Feyter@programming.dev
anzo@programming.dev
BurningTurtle@programming.dev
pylapp@programming.dev
95
Low effort meme (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 month ago by cm0002@lemmy.world to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev
18 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 36 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] RustyNova@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I don't get it either. OP might be angry at compile time (Couldn't be worse than rust)

[–] anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

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.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Yeah, Rust already has major compile time issues.

[–] RustyNova@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

TBH I thought it was for refactoring type safety. Making sure that the type is understood and not ready to just change wildly accidentally.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I thought that was part of the point - simplifying refactoring.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world -5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Not fair to compare it to the very immature Rust.

[–] RustyNova@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

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?

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Well, compared to grandpa C++ over there...

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world -5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

It's very young for a programming language, and is still rapidly evolving.

[–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month 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.

[–] anti_antidote@lemmy.zip -1 points 1 month ago

It's only a third of the age of C amirite 🙄

[–] aaaaaaaaargh@feddit.org 26 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.dev -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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

[–] aaaaaaaaargh@feddit.org 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Well... and what would be the meta templating equivalent to this statement?

[–] ulterno@programming.dev -1 points 1 month ago

Yeah, it’s so good that reality is flaking at the edges because of using

[–] KindaABigDyl@programming.dev 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Wdym? They're so good they even got backported to C in C23

You know how often C gets big features like that? I mean to get auto they had to basically deprecate a keyword (well, sort of)

[–] tyo_ukko@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I much prefer for (auto map : hashMaps) ... over for(unordered_map<string, unordered_set<string>> map : hashMaps) though. Shame they didn't name it "var" like in many other languages, auto just reminds me of cars.