CPP has become infinitely easier to write for me. That’s an exact figure, my total output of usable CPP lines was zero prior to LLMs.
I do however need to at least be able to write basic CPP to evaluate the code I’m generating. It’s just so hard to comb through all the bad and over complicated code out there, bad advice and outdated opinions.
find more books from additional readings sections of books you end up liking.
Don’t use LLM for learning as it is useless compared to searching amazon or doing general web search to find books.
You can recursively learn anything you need by finding books about needed subjects.
to some degree it is already being replaced:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj...
source: https://blog.google/security/rust-in-android-move-fast-fix-t...
Just to add to the bait, I find CPP libraries much more terse and functional, Rust libs tend towards over complexity and feature flexing.
Because for most developers language is a religion rather than just a tool.
Personally I do not consider Rust to be a better tool but it does not matter. Each one is free to drink their own poison. I do not get obsessed about screwdrivers and I have used many.
I have seen examples where some opinion gets momentum and it's repeated over and over again on the Internet even though the merit is very questionable.
Haven't looked enough into Rust to form an opinion though.
Otherwise, I don't respond to (imo) obvious provocations from questionable motives.
The problem is the sunk cost fallacy.
This is a pretty poor post. It’s impossible to see what exactly they’re comparing but they seem to be comparing post LLM code to pre LLM code.
Here you can find a general discussion of the article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45918616
Nevertheless, your feedback, despite its rudeness, backs up my criticism so thanks. Are you a Rust dev?
If you don't need compile time techniques (templates, concepts, consteval, context, ...) then C++17 might be acceptable, too.
Modern C++ is pretty nice to write and compile errors are sane as long as you utilize concepts where it makes sense.
ain't nothing better than books and doing some real project
I faced a similar issue myself when implementing a chunked vector a la `std::deque`, but opted for callback-based internal iteration, i.e.
Where `ControlFlow` is just: This is massively simpler to implement, and can model simpler algorithms such as `for_each`, `fill`, `transform`, `count`, `accumulate`.It's sometimes inferior in terms of ergonomics, and cannot express more complicated algorithms or iteration patterns (e.g. partial range, going backwards), but so far it has served me well.
Just something to consider if implementation simplicity is the priority and there's no need for a very generic suite of algorithms.