However, my impression is that he’s largely using the existence of templates and polymorphism as arguments that “we don’t really care about type”. I disagree: A template is essentially a generic type description that says something about what types are acceptable. When working with something polymorphic, I’ll prefer ParentClass&, to indicate what kind of interface I’m working with.
Sure, it can be very useful to hide exact type information in order to generalise the code, but I think that’s a weak argument for hiding all type information by default, which is what auto does.
Similarly, what would you gain by saying uint32_t const* x = my_var.get<uint32_t>();
To be frank: You gain the information that MyConcreteType::get<uint32_t> returns a uint32_t, which I otherwise couldn’t infer from the docs. Of course, I could assume it, based on the template parameter, but I don’t want to go around assuming a bunch of stuff in order to read docs.
Take an example like auto x = my_var.to_reduced_form(), it’s very clear that x is the “reduced form” of my_var, which could be meaningful in itself, but what type is it? I need to know that if I want to do anything with x. Can I do x += 1? If I do, will that modify my_var? Let’s say I want to make a vector of whatever to_reduced_form returns… and so on.
All these questions are very easily answered by MyConcreteTypex= my_var.to_reduced_form(). Now I immediately know that everything I can do with my_var, I can also do with x. This makes me happy, because I need to do less digging, and the code becomes clearer to read.
Thanks, that was a good read :)
However, my impression is that he’s largely using the existence of templates and polymorphism as arguments that “we don’t really care about type”. I disagree: A template is essentially a generic type description that says something about what types are acceptable. When working with something polymorphic, I’ll prefer
ParentClass&, to indicate what kind of interface I’m working with.Sure, it can be very useful to hide exact type information in order to generalise the code, but I think that’s a weak argument for hiding all type information by default, which is what
autodoes.deleted by creator
To be frank: You gain the information that
MyConcreteType::get<uint32_t>returns auint32_t, which I otherwise couldn’t infer from the docs. Of course, I could assume it, based on the template parameter, but I don’t want to go around assuming a bunch of stuff in order to read docs.Take an example like
auto x = my_var.to_reduced_form(), it’s very clear thatxis the “reduced form” ofmy_var, which could be meaningful in itself, but what type is it? I need to know that if I want to do anything withx. Can I dox += 1? If I do, will that modifymy_var? Let’s say I want to make avectorof whateverto_reduced_formreturns… and so on.All these questions are very easily answered by
MyConcreteType x = my_var.to_reduced_form(). Now I immediately know that everything I can do withmy_var, I can also do withx. This makes me happy, because I need to do less digging, and the code becomes clearer to read.deleted by creator