Nah I'm a C++ (ex?) enthusiast and modules are cool but there's only so many decades you can wait for a feature other languages have from day 1, and then another decade for compilers to actually implement it in a usable manner.
I am fine with waiting for a feature and using it when it's here.
But at this point, I feel like C++ modules are a ton of complexity for users, tools, and compilers to wrangle... for what? Slightly faster compile times than PCH? Less preprocessor code in your C++.. maybe? Doesn't seem worth it to me in comparison.
On one hand I can see where you can draw this argument from. But on the other hand I don't think daily consumption of the huge quantity of news that exists is necessary for having a decent political opinion, especially given that most news is inflammatory junk (at least in my country). I just don't need a 5 page breakdown of every single event that some corpo decided to shove down our throats.
Also - and maybe I'm naive for this - I don't really need news to inform my political opinion because the current state of affairs is so far from my ideal world. Like no matter what could reasonably occur in the news, I still know who I'm voting for on polling day.
If you look at enough cheapo/handmade circuit boards you'll notice they often look like the bottom one. Cramped, untidy, or otherwise odd trace layout, poor part placement, poor soldering. The top one - although looking less space efficient because there's more going on - is layed out better. The design just flows in a way amateur designs don't.
I've been an avid C++ user for ages and this is the first time I've seen the final spec of C++26 reflections used in a practical context - and wow am I having a "wtf" moment at the syntax.
^^T ?? obj.[:member:] ?? What is this craziness? No way this is the best we could come up with. I'm actually thinking C++ may be going too far (and this is as someone who thinks template metaprogramming is "fine").
Never before has that quote "inside C++ is a smaller, better language trying to get out" been more applicable.
While I agree it has a certain Perl feeling and I used to advocate for functions/operators, e.g. reflex or similar, it still feels better than unicode operators in FP languages or the two macro systems used by Rust.
At least being based on compile time execution infrastructure means you can debug it on IDEs, Clion already has some work into that direction.
On the other hand, I know plenty of devs with a degree who are not very good. So should we conclude that have a degree is not very correlated with dev skill?
It's kind of a meme within the photography community though. People will spend many thousands of dollars on a camera that's supposedly "the best" (pick your fave reasons, ideally as obscure as possible) and then not actually shoot with it. Looking at yall, Leica fans.
Yeah this what I immediately think too any time I see an article like this. Adjustments like contrast and saturation are plausible to show before/after, but before any sort of tone curve makes no sense unless you have some magic extreme HDR linear display technology (we don't). Putting linear data into 0-255 pixels which are interpreted as SRGB makes no sense whatsoever. You are basically viewing junk. It's not like that's what the camera actually "sees". The camera sees a similar scene to what we see with our eyes, although it natively stores and interprets it differently to how our brain does (i.e. linear vs perceptual).
Eh, I'm a photographer and I don't fully agree. Of course almost all photos these days are edited in some form. Intent is important, yes. But there are still some kinds of edits that immediately classify a photo as "fake" for me.
For example if you add snow to a shot with masking or generative AI. It's fake because the real life experience was not actually snowing. You can't just hallucinate a major part of the image - that counts as fake to me. A major departure from the reality of the scene. Many other types of edits don't have this property because they are mostly based on the reality of what occurred.
I think for me this comes from an intrinsic valuing of the act/craft of photography, in the physical sense. Once an image is too digitally manipulated then it's less photography and more digital art.
reply