At the moment it doesn't seem to be particularly interesting because all the targets I use are C++-ready.
-
-
Replying to @cmuratori
Controlling name mangling to make debugging a bit nicer is the only real reason I can think of
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sssmcgrath
I haven't found that to be much of a concern. Being able to step through _expanded_ code, though, is a huge bonus.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @sssmcgrath
IDEs should really allow you to view your C++ template code specialized to the compiled output.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cmuratori @sssmcgrath
It's always immediately obvious what's going on in generated code _you can actually see_, IMO...
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cmuratori @sssmcgrath
... but the big F U of templates is that you never get to see that AFAIK.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cmuratori @sssmcgrath
That would be _extremely_ useful for working through batshit crazy template code.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @c_nich @sssmcgrath
I'm always shocked at how very obvious things are apparently not obvious to dev tool writers :/
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @sssmcgrath @c_nich
Well, sort of. But usually software isn't made by people who do the thing the software does.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Eg., the programmer on Microsoft Excel is probably not an accountant.
-
-
The programmer on Microsoft Visual Studio _is_ a progr... oh wait... I think I see the problem :P
1 reply 0 retweets 11 likes -
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.