I don't get it. What's wrong with constexpr? It's vastly preferable to macros due to type safety, and const due to compile-time optimization.
I don't get it either. OP might be angry at compile time (Couldn't be worse than rust)
Rust doesn't allow type inference in function signatures, c++ does with auto.
IIRC, they recommended against using it, because of -you guessed it- compile time.
Not fair to compare it to the very immature Rust.
What!? constexpr is one of the best additions to C++ ever since. And I do like auto even though I get why some folks can't stand it.
Wdym? They're so good they even got backported to C in C23
You know how often C gets big features like that? I mean to get auto they had to basically deprecate a keyword (well, sort of)
I much prefer
for (auto map : hashMaps) ...
over
for(unordered_map<string, unordered_set<string>> map : hashMaps)
though. Shame they didn't name it "var" like in many other languages, auto just reminds me of cars.
I don't get it. What's wrong with constexpr? It's vastly preferable to macros due to type safety, and const due to compile-time optimization.
I don't get it either. OP might be angry at compile time (Couldn't be worse than rust)
Rust doesn't allow type inference in function signatures, c++ does with auto. IIRC, they recommended against using it, because of -you guessed it- compile time.
Not fair to compare it to the very immature Rust.