cborgolte cborgolte

Niner since 2012

about 6 years develping scientific software with a combination of fortran, c and c++

3 years developing ERP related web-based software.

founder of solar-radar.com


  • Day 1 Keynote - Bjarne Stroustrup: C++11 Style

    After a night thinking about this issue I have to correct my first comment.

    Within the meaning of this excellent talk, the examples using Point are the better ones. I was just misled by the different notations for good examples written with parameters and bad examples written without.

    The Point example is better, because it implicates the possibility to use units like it is done by the Speed example.

  • Day 1 Keynote - Bjarne Stroustrup: C++11 Style

    @bog: Thanks for this detailed answer to my comment.

    I dont want to start nit-picking here. For sure 99.9999% of all programmers (me included) would use both corner points to define a rectangle. But you could also define it by its center point and any other point.

    Or using the second constructor with Point top_left and Box_hw. Even if i would be 99% sure that i know what's meant, if i would read 

    Rectangle(Point, Box_hw);
    I would take a look at the implementation or read the docs to be sure.

    So for me, using declarative parameter names highly improves the readability of interfaces.

  • Day 1 Keynote - Bjarne Stroustrup: C++11 Style

    I dont see any difference between the example

    Rectangle(int, int, int, int);

    and the 'better' example

    Rectangle(Point, Point);

    Both are understandable only if you use declarative parameter names as it is done with

    Rectangle(Point top_left, Point bottom_right);

    which is equally understandable for me if you write 

    Rectangle(int top_x, int top_y, int bottom_x, int bottom_y);