1. 6
  1.  

  2. 4

    I’m pretty torn about the FQA in general.

    It is a fantastic guide for really understanding what goes on in C++, and what is concerning. It reads as a warning list for anyone considering making a language that mixes ‘expressiveness’ with performance/intricate semantics.

    On the other hand, it’s very existence means that no comment thread about C++ can go by without some good-at-the-Internet commenter showing up and linking to it for the purposes of sidetracking an entire discussion.

    I don’t advocate removing it, but it certainly attracts flies.

    1. 1

      The meta-discussion in this post in which Yosef says he was inspired by the UNIX-HATERS book/list is interesting from that perspective, since it had a somewhat similar role. Though it sounds like he’s thinking the over-the-top, passionate-hatred writing style might be have outworn its usefulness and a future editor (if any) should rework the FQA’s tone.

      1. 2

        That passionate-hatred writing style is a good counterpoint to the carefree gleefulness one typically encounters in folks that are trying to push ever-more usage of C++ features.

        It’s a hatred well-earned if you’ve ever had to deal with that nonsense in getting a codebase to work.