- cross-posted to:
- programmer_humor@programming.dev
- cross-posted to:
- programmer_humor@programming.dev
You must log in or register to comment.
Rebel side
\0If you write to a text (as opposed to binary) stream, \n produces \n or \r\n (or \r if old enough) depending on platform just fine.
Nobody should be using C++ anyway, but plenty of languages have silly system newline constants, which do nothing useful.
Why should no one be using c++?
It’s memory unsafe and it’s syntax is indistinguishable from the runes which summon cthulu.
Memory unsafe C++ is a choice. With modern C++ you have no excuse for accessing raw pointers or arrays without range checking if memory safety is a priority.
Yeah, just don’t make any mistakes and you’ll be fine. Come on guys, how hard can it be?
As I said: There are tools in place in modern C++ that are designed to catch the errors you make. If you are using a raw pointer when you could have used a reference, or accessing an array without range checking, those are choices you’ve made. They may be valid choices in your use-case, but don’t go complaining that the language is “unsafe” when it gives you the option to code with guard rails and you choose to forgo them.
I’m a full time C++ developer, mostly doing high performance data processing and some visualization and TUI tools, and as someone loving C++, it’s not as simple as you frame it. In sufficiently complex code you still have to deal with these problems. Rust has some good mechanisms in place to avoid these and there are things on the way for c++26 though.
I don’t mean to say that C++ is in any way without faults. If performance is crucial, that can definitely be a reason to forgo some of the guard-rails, and then you’re on your own.
I guess my issue with the “C++ is unsafe”-trope, is that it usually (in my experience) comes from people not having heard of all the guard-rails in the first place, or refusing to use them when appropriate. They write C++ as if they were writing C, and then complain that the language is unsafe when they’ve made a mistake that is easily avoided using stl-containers.
I think the memory stuff is pretty good nowadays. I’m sure I saw modern C++ can have a garbage collector. And the syntax is only runelike until you learn it, like any language really. As an industry C# developer I’ve recently taken up C++ as a hobby to better learn the workings of low level code and I’ve been enjoying it so far.
\r\n gang
Get out
Yeah
\rgang4lyfe
Are you a modem by any chance?
I’m on side
\PHP_EOLI like that you added the absolute namespace identifier or whatever its called
\n, because I ordered a newline, not a flush.
Environment.NewLine might exist in C#
Microsoft really creating the problem and then forcing you to use their solution.
It might do. I encountered it last week as I needed it for a powershell script. So it exists in that at least
os.linesepLol jk none of my stuff runs on Windows anyway
#define endl “\n”
\r\n
If I’m writing C++, I’m usually optimizing for portability over performance, in which case I would prefer std::endl as it would yield the best results regardless of platform; it also keeps the end-of-line character out of other strings, making code just a little cleaner.
\n is for when I’m done pretending that anything that isn’t Unix-like is OK, or I’m counting the cycles of every branch instruction.
std::endl provides zero portability benefits. C++ does have a portable newline abstraction, but it is called
\n, not endl.Thank you two for demonstrating the image in the post so well.
No, there’s no guarantee that in every context \n is translated portably.
The same is true of std::endl. std::endl is simply defined as
<< '\n' << std::flush; nothing more, nothing less. In all cases where endl gives you a “properly translated” newline, so does\n.Yeah it’s an artificial dichotomy based on a popular misconception of what std::endl is and how \n is interpreted.
Ultimately it does not ask about line endings, but about flushing, which is a completely orthogonal question.
Ahhh, I see. Looks like the magic happens somewhere further down in iostream.
It’s controlled by whether the stream’s opened in text mode or binary mode. On Unix, they’re the same, but on Windows, text mode has line ending conversion.
What the heck is endl???
God bless your soul.
From memory it’s a way to declare a line ending after your string.
Boy am I glad I don’t do C++ anymore. That string handling with the overloaded bitshift operator was wild.
Ah, so you’re a println! kinda guy?
🦀 🦀🦀🦀🦀🦀🦀🦀
Alternatively:
https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/io/manip/endl
p.s. The site isn’t entirely mobile friendly
(I’m a cppref lover tbh)
Instead of this:
cout << "Hello world.\n";You can do this:
cout << "Hello world." << endl;something has replaced your lessthan signs with their HTML counterparts. such a silly thing to do in a code block
I think that’s client side. Doesn’t happen for me.
same here. AP isn’t standardized enough, apparently
The fact that you used the namespace for
coutbut not forendlinordinately bothers me
std::endlis used in output streams in C++ to end the line, using the os specific line termination sequence, and flush the buffer.The later one is a performance issue in many cases, why the use of
"\n"is considered preferredDon’t most terminals flush the buffer on newline anyway?
Maybe, but there is the internal buffer. Also, most I/O happens in files not consoles
It is the stream itself that is buffered, so the terminal does not handle the contents until the stream is flushed.
vbCrLfEndl is faster to type
They aren’t the same thing so the comparison is weird.
endlhas aflushwhich is important when doing something like embedded work or RTOS development. If i was doing multiple lines they all were\nuntil the last line when i actually want to push the buffer.Obviously depending on the tuning of the compiler’s optimization multiple flushes could be reduced but the goal should always be to write as optimal as possible.
Who in the hell is using iostreams in an RTOS
Several. Probably dozens
Sometimes you work in a codebase that was decided on by others for reasons you don’t know.
but the goal should always be to write as optimal as possible.
Within reason.
Over optimization is a curse on getting done.
