Programming

17366 readers

169 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Follow the programming.dev instance rules
Keep content related to programming in some way
If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

snowe@programming.dev

Ategon@programming.dev

MaungaHikoi@lemmy.nz

I Don't Use Exceptions in C++ Anymore (thelig.ht)

submitted 1 year ago by pnutzh4x0r@lemmy.ndlug.org to c/programming@programming.dev

18 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Using exceptions in C++ desktop and server applications overall made sense to me. As I expanded my usage of C++ into other domains, specifically embedded domains, I began to experience more compelling reasons not to use exceptions first-hand...

From lobste.rs

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] BatmanAoD@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You seem to be ignoring the benefits of compiler support as mentioned in the comment above.

[–] lysdexic@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

compiler support

That remark was on sum types, not monads. You do not need "compiler support" to have Result or neither monads in C++. There are already plenty of libraries that implement those. I use them in some of my projects. No compiler support needed.

As I said, sum types are not required for Return or Either monads. At best, they are convenient.

[–] BatmanAoD@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The original claim wasn't that you can't implement monads in C++, it was that compiler support is needed for "good" sum types. Unless I'm misreading, you brought monads into it. And they're not totally orthogonal: sum types are a very good way to implement monads.

[–] lysdexic@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Unless I’m misreading, you brought monads into it.

You're misreading it. What do you think a 'Result' type is?

[–] BatmanAoD@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well, in Rust, it's a sum-type, with functions that also let you use it like a monad instead of using explicit pattern matching.

[–] lysdexic@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Well, in Rust, it’s a sum-type

The discussion is on to use monads in C++, and not on why is C++ different than Rust.

I repeat: you do not need sum types to implement a Result monad in C++.

[–] BatmanAoD@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago

The discussion was about sum types. The top-level comment, the one to which you originally responded, says:

It's a shame that sum type support is still so lacking in C++. Proper Result types (ala Haskell or Rust) are generally much nicer to deal with, especially in embedded contexts.