@rmam Older versions of the C++ standard are withdrawn.

This just goes to show the degree of confusion you’re dealing with. You’re confusing ISO’s systematic review process with the real world. ISO’s withdrawal process is used as a janitorial process regarding documents than require updates and/or maintenance. Just because no one will update C+11 that does not mean no one writes code in C++11 or compiler writers pulled it’s support. ISO’s review process matters nothing.

Last time I checked, over half of the C++ community was still using C++14 or older.

Jumping into the latest and greatest is only trivial in small pet projects. In professional settings this requires significant amounts of work.

It depends on the project, but in some teams I was in we standardized in a format of multi-line commits where we simply added the issue reference as a prefix in the commit message followed by a short summary, and we added a link to the pull request in a separate line.

We floated the idea of setting up a commit message linter but those cause more problems than the ones they solve.

there exists only one C++ standard at a time

What? No. That’s not how it works, at all. When a new version of the international standard is published, that does not mean previous versions cease to exist. It just means there’s a new version.

It’s quite interesting that, after adding all percentages, the total goes up to 144%. Clearly some fancy math is in play.

std::string_view

Small caveat: std::string_view was introduced in C++17. Not all projects made that jump yet.

One thing that’s conspicuously absent from this announcement is real-world data on performance improvements. It’s fine that the theoretical change in stores can be up to 20%, but that does not map linearly to wall time. Do those hypothetical performance improvements justify switching to an entirely new x86-derived ISA? Perhaps switching to ARM gets more bang for the buck, specially if that bang is capped so low. Surely the world can get greater performance improvements by buying AMD and stick with AMD64.

The real question is does belittling people in Stack overflow helps you compensate for something? Because that’s supposedly a venue where people help each other, but you’re just there to dump your frustrations on newbies.

The performance gains are impressive in relative terms, but I don’t think I would ever switch the default linker if the potential gains are like shaving off 5 seconds when linking a 3GB bundle of binaries.

There is not much dignity in belittling others in a desperate attempt to compensate for something.

If you don’t want to help others then that’s ok. Move on. Just don’t try to pretend you want to help.

If it’s simple then it has been asked tens of times in SO

That’s fine. If that’s the case then mark the question as duplicate and move on. If not, it should eventually help someone else. There’s no need to shut down honest questions, specially as Stack Overflow’s main problem is abusive moderators who repeatedly make mistakes misclassifying questions and even completely failing to understand them.

If you decide to start a project but somehow decide to self-host a git repository, ticketing service, CICD pipelines, etc… You no longer work on said project and instead you’re the system administrator of half a dozen services.

…or you register an account with the likes of GitHub/gitlab, and stay coding right away.

How about this. SO is a conglomerate of volunteering peers, who do not work for you (…)

And that’s fine. Ignore the question and move on with your life.

As you’ve said, you are only a volunteer. You don’t own the service nor do you get to dictate what other people’s doubts are worthy or not. If you want to help others them share whatever you can share. Otherwise go find a better use of your time without getting in the way of every other volunteer.

It is not a tutorial site, a help desk, or a source of free labor. It’s denigrating to treat it that way.

Stack Overflow states quite clearly in its home page that it is “A community-based space to find and contribute answers to technical challenges”.

Call it “help desk” or whatever. Stack Overflow is by design a place to ask questions to technical challenges.

You do not get to dictate what other people find challenging. You do not get to abuse services to abuse people by denigrating them.

That doesn’t clarify anything at all, and in fact reflects a desire do denigrate people for asking honest questions.

Most questions can be answered by RTFM. That does not automatically mean the questions should not be asked.

Proponents of RTFM seem to believe all manuals are written well, when that’s the exception and not the norm.

If all you have to say is RTFM, everyone would be better off if you sat out the question and let others chime in. The overall posture reeks of ladder pulling.

It feels like they’re trying to be a sort of “wikipedia” of every programming problem and solution.

It looks to me that they could effectively address that by improving their search combined with question grooming, and not shutting down posters.

I mean, what’s a naive poster asking dumb questions other than a new user wanting to contribute? Is this the people they want to insult away?

For me the real problem with Stack Overflow, as someone who was one of the earliest users of the service, is when you ask a question now you don’t actually get a good answer anymore. Often your question just gets deleted by moderators.

This. I recall that I posted some question over a framework and if it supported a feature, and the question was shut down because a moderator complained it lacked a minimum working example. Unreal.

answer the stupid questions.

What do you mean by “stupid questions”?

You are on a team and that team has at least one member that isn’t pulling their weight. The reasons why generally range from a lack of work ethic to a lack of talent.

I think they are pushing the incompetence angle too hard in a way that the author seems to be trying to elevate himself at the expense of others.

If your team hired and retained a guy, that means that team member passed the hiring bar you passed and justified his place in the organization. It’s highly unlikely he started to underperform because he unlearned stuff or suddenly became incompetent. Odds are you’re dealing with a team member that is experiencing mental health issues such as burning out.

If that’s the case, the mere thought that a team member decided to devote his time writing up articles on how to stab team members in the back when they’re at a low point of their life reeks of a toxic work environment.

!typescript

!typescript@programming.dev

(Testing testing, 1 2 3…)