I did say language and tools. ;)
That the language still allows you to make that exact same mistake in exactly the same way doesn't make it look like an upgrade =P
True, the tools for the language are what's better.
Your Worst "Gotchas" ever in programming
Oh gee.
- Anything threading
- Implementing a reusable, thread-safe, intrusive copy-on-write base for classes (2 levels of thread safety required!!)
- Any undocumented or hard to find caveat to a windows api call. Ex: WatiForMultipleObjects in some threading situations
- Different STL optimization flags set in a single project. This caused random crashes in random places I spent a looong time "debugging" in code which was actually correct.
- MSVC producing the same .obj filename out of two separate source codes in separate directories which themselves have the same filename. UGH. Major linking problems.
- C++ implicit casting has nailed me hard more than once.
Actually, the implicit NULL conversion to literal 0 in my code is a total red herring. The actual evil is squarely with default parameters, and can be trivially reconstructed even with all the parameters being of primitive non-pointer types.Oh, don't worry on that account, we already upgraded our language.
Which, incidentally, also solves ApochPiQ's bug in the post above this.
You know, I'm sure with a higher than default warning level and 'warnings as errors' I've seen the compiler catch this error before now (reports as a warning, warning as error fails the compile).It looks like C#.
I did say language and tools. ;)
Oh, don't worry on that account, we already upgraded our language.
Which, incidentally, also solves ApochPiQ's bug in the post above this.
Now, it won't catch you when you make this mistake...
auto it = std::begin(someContainer);
auto end = std::end(someContainer);
bool found = false;
while(it != end && !found)
{
found = *it == searchItem;
}
@ApochPiQ: Then I fail, cause I can't spot it at all. 
(Ignoring the lack of actual inheritance in the structs, which I presume isn't the bug)
I'll rephrase it slightly:
struct Base
{
Base(int oldValue, int newValueWeJustAdded, int oldValueWithDefault = 42);
};
struct EverythingMustBeOne : Base
{
EverythingMustBeOne()
: Base(1, 1, 1)
{ }
};
struct EverythingMustBeTwo : Base
{
EverythingMustBeTwo()
: Base(2, 2)
{ }
};
You know, I'm sure with a higher than default warning level and 'warnings as errors' I've seen the compiler catch this error before now (reports as a warning, warning as error fails the compile).
Gcc requires -Wall and -extra to catch it. Clang catches it by default.
(incidentally, this discussion is occurring over here as well).
Now, it won't catch you when you make this mistake...Opps...auto it = std::begin(someContainer); auto end = std::end(someContainer); bool found = false; while(it != end && !found) { found = *it == searchItem; }
Lesson: stick to for loops when doing that kind of iterations.
I prefer the 'while' construct; imo it better expresses the intent of the loop.Lesson: stick to for loops when doing that kind of iterations.
'for' tends to imply you'll hit a whole range where 'while' is more a 'while these conditions are true' and, in my mind, is better for a search.
Would have prefered to have used an std algorithm however, would have been clearer and without the mistake...
If werent by gamedev...Ive had gave up on programming many times..(learned new stuff in that one)
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
