Programming

17661 readers

245 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 [email protected]

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

snowe

Ategon

[email protected]

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

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/programming

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

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (14 children)

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.

As is, there's only std::expected (which can and will blow up in your face if you forget to check has_value) and std::variant, which I have heard nothing but complaints about.

[–] lysdexic 2 points 1 year ago (13 children)

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.

I don't think this is a lack of support in C++. There are already a few C++ libraries that implement Either and Result monads. It would be nice if those were supported in the C++ stand library, but that does not stop anyone from adopting them.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (12 children)

I would consider language support essential for "good" sum types. AFAIK, stuff like exhaustive pattern matching can't be accomplished by a library. Perhaps you could do some cursed stuff with compiler plugins, however.

(There was a library that implemented non-exhaustive pattern matching that eventually morphed into an ISO C++ proposal... so we won't see it until 2030 at the earliest /hj)

[–] qwertyasdef 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

At a library level, couldn't you have an opaque sum type where the only thing you can do with it is call a match method that requires a function pointer for each possible variant of the sum type? It'd be pretty cursed to use but at least it wouldn't require compiler plugins.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I'd bet five bucks some desperate Haskeller or Rustacean has implemented exactly that. You could also probably use nested functions for GCC C or lambdas in C++ to move everything inline?

load more comments (10 replies)