#include is a C pre-processor feature which just pastes in whatever the contents of the specified file are. Did you not know that's what it does ?
> Humor me, show me where this "member function" is?
That doAsyncOperation is a member function. Unlike member variables, which are part of the actual data structure we're defining, the member functions are the peculiar syntax for methods in C++, the function won't actually live inside the data structure, we're not making any sort of function pointer or reference - it's just written here because presumably Bjarne couldn't think of anywhere better to put it.
I guess it's possible you didn't understand that, it does seem like a fair number of undergrads think this will be how it works when shown C++ which isn't great news.
> I honestly feel like we're not reading the same code .. but maybe that's your point.
>#include is a C pre-processor feature which just pastes in whatever the contents of the specified file are. Did you not know that's what it does ?
LOL, I’ve been writing professional C and C++ code for 40 years, so yes indeed I know perfectly well what it does, I just couldn’t fathom your description as being a valid complaint. I mean, seriously?
“Data structure”. No, it’s a class.
Since this class is about encapsulating behavior, managing state, or providing an interface it’s better described as a code module.
Since you cannot make this distinction and seem more inclined to argue from the position of someone who can’t/won’t write C++ code, I’ll just leave you to your misery and state that I disagree with your whining, completely. Please don’t ever write any C++.
Although it inherits from C several kinds of user defined type, C++ chooses to neuter all of them so that in practice any real user defined type "is a class". One of the many cringey Herb Sutter (IIRC) stunts at CppCon was singing "all you need is class" to the tune of the Beatles' "All you need is love".
But crucially here what we're talking about is the choice to define the concrete data structure inline with the definition of a class as "member variables" and to also mix in these "member functions" which aren't part of that data structure. That's an unnecessarily confusing way to do this.
Unlike "member function", your "code module" is not in fact part of C++ nomenclature. You're of course welcome to invent your own terminology to explain what's going on but it does obviously undercut the claim that this is "clean and readable" if you had to invent your own terms to even talk about it.
I do agree with you that writing C++ is a bad idea.
“Code module” is a generic phrase used in many programming languages, not just C++.
Your pedantry over what is an extremely useful and highly productive language, for which there is ample evidence of actual utility, belies a feeble attempt to justify what I believe is your fundamental failure to have actually shipped products in any language, whatsoever. Not just C++. I doubt you ship anything at all, given your proclivity for tripping over your lack of understanding.
Which languages have you used to ship real products to your users?
I've been paid to write software in C, Java, Python, C#, Perl, PHP, Bourne shell, and doubtless many more I've forgotten over decades.
If you consider "People who use Free Software" to be users you can doubtless add a dozen more languages, including (which was a surprise to me 25+ years later) Scheme apparently, but most recently only Rust because that's what I'd prefer to write. If you've used Rust's compiler, a tiny portion of that was written by me.
#include is a C pre-processor feature which just pastes in whatever the contents of the specified file are. Did you not know that's what it does ?
> Humor me, show me where this "member function" is?
That doAsyncOperation is a member function. Unlike member variables, which are part of the actual data structure we're defining, the member functions are the peculiar syntax for methods in C++, the function won't actually live inside the data structure, we're not making any sort of function pointer or reference - it's just written here because presumably Bjarne couldn't think of anywhere better to put it.
I guess it's possible you didn't understand that, it does seem like a fair number of undergrads think this will be how it works when shown C++ which isn't great news.
> I honestly feel like we're not reading the same code .. but maybe that's your point.
I'm reading the code you wrote in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45484503 and frankly the response just makes me think C++ programmers don't understand C++ either.