Wouldn't the AI track be more about the knowing the internals, being able to build models, ... So in your 1981 example that would be saying about half of the people are enrolling in computer hardware courses, whereas only a fraction of those are needed?
I would assume any other CS course teaches/is going to be teaching how to use AI to be an effective software developer.
I'm getting much higher framerates in Civ VI on linux since I switched to Wayland, so there is that. For the rest it just works for me, use it both professionally and privately.
It is happening. There is a lot of bad software out there. Terrible to use, but still functional enough that it keeps selling. The question is how much crap you can pile on top of that already bad code before it falls apart.
Agreed that a C++ API for qml would be great. qml by itself is great though, I don't see why it is unweildy. If anything it's unpolished, there is stuff that is more difficult than it should be, but it's miles ahead of what there was before imo.
It is unwieldily because it abstracts logic into a different language and paradigm. You need double the cognitive understanding of qt now to know how it operates.
As someone with 10,000+ lines of C++ code and 10,000+ lines of QML code in his app[1] I can say this is false. It's actually much easier and straightforward to decouple the UI (QML) and logic (C++). It also makes such a great combo - QML is amazing to write UIs in and C++ is a fast, battle tested compiled language. I wrote a little bit about my app development if you're curious[2].
By the same metric c++ qwidgets is amazing to write UIs and by keeping everything in c++ there is easily less abstraction, I can easily navigate my code, not jump between two different systems. There really is no great reason why qml objects couldn’t be c++ classes/functions. Decoupling does what for me, but introduce more syntax, documentation, and learning curves. You should give writing a Kde6 Kirigami app a try and experience the absolute pleasure of adding another abstraction layer onto qml, c++ to muck things up. Qml is the cooler brother of Uic, but at least uic was optional.
I'm very fond of QML's syntax, so can't quite understand why you don't like it. It has a learning curve, but I studied all the basics in a day (it's just so simple and intuitive, imo).
Not sure how "QML in C++" would look like, but it doesn't sound pretty. Recently someone published a declarative UI inside C++[1] (without a different syntax) but I felt a bit off with this approach. Maybe that's something you mean?
I don’t know how else to explain it that compared to qwidgets where everything can be handled in code. Qml might be all the things it claims , elegance, separation of concerns, simple syntax, etc, but that still doesn’t eclipse my initial issue that it’s an unnecessary abstraction. You might not think it’s pretty but I think it’s pretty to only use c++.
For me the 10x engineers don't write the same code as others faster, they come up with approaches and ideas that others simply don't think of, resulting in huge gains in terms of development speed and/or product features.
Most C++ devs don't care that much either way I'd say, it's a vocal minority that does. I really don't understand the nay-sayers though, been a C++ dev for over 15 years, I'd give an arm and a leg for 1. faster language evolution (cries in pattern matching) and 2. a way to enforce safe code. Having to use std::variant when I want to use a sum type in 2024 is just so backwards it's hard to express. Still love the language though :p
C++ became my favourite language after Object Pascal, as it provided similar safety levels, added with the portability.
I never been that big into C, although I do know it relatively well, as much as anyone can claim to do so, because it is a key language in anything UNIX/POSIX and Windows anyway.
One of the appealing things back then were the C++ frameworks that were provided alongside C++ compilers, pre-ISO C++98, all of them with more security consideration than what ended up landing on the standard library, e.g. bounds checking by default on collection types.
Nowadays I rather spend my time in other languages, and reach out to C++ on a per-need basis, as other language communities take the security discussion more seriously.
However, likewise I still love the language itself, and is one of those that I usually reach for in side projects, where I can freely turn to 100% all the safety features available to me, without the usual drama from some C++ circles.
I agree with some of this, and the author could've made a better case for from/to_chars:
- Afaik stoi and friends depend on the locale, so it's not hard to believe this introduced additional overhead. The implicit locale dependency is also often very surprising.
- std::stoi only accepts std::string as input, so you're forced to allocate a string to use it. std::from_chars does not.
- from/to_chars don't throw. As far as I know this won't affect performance if it doesn't happen, it does mean you can use these functions in environments where exceptions are disabled.
Cool article. They somehow got the formula wrong though, the formula on the screenshot has an additional factor of 0.9 that accounts for the fact that 1l of oil is not 1 kg. Perhaps it's intentional, but for something so simple I don't think it needs to be dumbed down even further.
I would assume any other CS course teaches/is going to be teaching how to use AI to be an effective software developer.
reply