Comments on: How learning Python made me a better C++ programmer

By: Arthur Klassen

Arthur Klassen — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 23:07:22 +0000

Jamie Bullock’s link doesn’t forward correctly to his article. Try this link instead.

cheers…ank

By: Effectize

Effectize — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 05:18:34 +0000

89 Ways for You to Become the Coolest Programmer in the World…

Since there are dozens of posts on becoming a better developer, but no single post with all the advice you need, perhaps, you’ll find this short guide useful.
1. Learn the Skills You Need

Learn the programming basics

“The goal of this guide is to b…

By: Jon Harrop

Jon Harrop — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 05:33:46 +0000

Learn OCaml and you’ll stop trying to be a better C++ programmer!

By: Jamie Bullock

Jamie Bullock — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 10:05:03 +0000

@Ryan

OK, here’s my attempt at the raganwald challenge:

http://www.postlude.co.uk/blog/Python/better_programmer

By: Wolfgang Frisch

Wolfgang Frisch — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 20:07:32 +0000

“No amount of unreadable, undebuggable, not-very-portable bolted on kludgery is ever going to make C++ do lambdas as well as a language that was designed for that.”

Interestingly though, the next version of C++, currently called C++0x will feature lambda constructs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C++0x#Lambda_functions_and_expressions

Oher aspects well known to Python programmers will be in it too, like r”raw strings” and u”unicode strings”.

By: Ryan Ginstrom

Ryan Ginstrom — Sat, 06 Oct 2007 22:07:22 +0000

@Paul
Have you been burned by boost or the STL before?

For new development, my first choice is almost always Python. However, I have a lot of legacy C++ code to maintain, and I’ll continue to use C++ in speed-critical parts of my programs. In those cases, the STL and the boost libraries have made this a lot less painful.

By: Paul

Paul — Sat, 06 Oct 2007 12:22:09 +0000

Someone else discovers that C++ doesn’t do some things as well as higher level languages! If you need/want these capabilities, you’re better off either using a different language or spending your time making it co-operate with C++. No amount of unreadable, undebuggable, not-very-portable bolted on kludgery is ever going to make C++ do lambdas as well as a language that was designed for that.

I stick by my rules: no boost in production code, ever; STL beyond basic containers must be justified and approved; nesting templates (for example) is more likely to get you in code review trouble than virtually any use of macros.

I call our policy “Aim low and SHIP.”

By: Ryan Ginstrom

Ryan Ginstrom — Sat, 06 Oct 2007 07:32:34 +0000

“Re Boost.Any, you’ll probably find that Boost.Variant is better for most uses as it is type safe in a way that Boost.Any isn’t.”

Thanks for the tip. I had kind of gravitated toward Boost.Any simply for the icky associations of the “variant” word , but I’ll look into using Boost.Variant more in the future.

Great Website, by the way!

By: Kirit

Kirit — Sat, 06 Oct 2007 05:33:39 +0000

Re Boost.Any, you’ll probably find that Boost.Variant is better for most uses as it is type safe in a way that Boost.Any isn’t.

If you have any Boost code to share, please head over to the Boost Cookbook and drop it in there. Especially any of it that shows Python idioms translated into C++.

By: Ryan Ginstrom

Ryan Ginstrom — Sat, 06 Oct 2007 00:16:52 +0000

@Edd
Yes, duck typing is another good one. I also like boost:any to get run-time dynamic typing.

@Edd & Jamie
Looking forward to seeing your articles!