Going Native 2012 Keynote Stroustrup

What people said

munk801 · 2013-04 · Recommendation

GoingNative 2012 - Bjarne Stroustrup talks about C++ 11. Very good talk about the ideas behind C++ 11 [VIDEO]

Read the original HN comment ↗

agentultra · 2012-05 · Recommendation

This sounds like the kind of problem that puts really expensive robots into craters. [VIDEO] There's a salient point in that talk where he describes a mission that failed due to a human error. Someone forgot to convert an internal representation of a unit in some algorithm which led to a miscalculation and a loss of some millions of dollars. Apparently the error made it through all of the code reviews and tests that were written. Bjarne then shows some pretty simple code that might have avoided such a disaster by specifying your types up front and letting the compiler do the work of converting them. Seems like a pretty simple concept and I wonder why it's so often missed.

Read the original HN comment ↗

quuxplusone · 2025-09 · Reference

The talk: [VIDEO] Sadly the 25-line original code isn't presented; the code that is presented is the 5-line replacement using the STL's `find_if` and `rotate`. Bjarne sketches the idea that those five lines can be further condensed into two lines with the non-STL `gather` algorithm: auto dest = std::find_if(v.begin(), v.end(), contains(p)); stdx::gather(v.begin(), dest, v.end(), [](const auto& elt) { return &elt == &*source; }); But this is overkill — replacing an O(distance(source,dest)) non-allocating rotate with an O(v.size()) potentially-allocating stable_partition — and more importantly it re-complicates the code. Now, I think part of his point is that `stable_partition` is "simpler" than `gather` only because it's in the STL. If we add `gather` to the STL too and everyone learns what it means, then there's no objection to using `gather` for "simplification" like this: it would be a straightforward simplification in almost the same way that `std::equal_range(first, last, x)` is a straightforward simplification of `std::make_pair(std::lower_bound(first, last, x), std::upper_bound(first, last, x))`. The "almost" is that actually there is an algorithmic advantage to `std::equal_range`: when you're looking for the upper bound, you don't have to consider any of the elements to the left of the lower bound you already found. You get a (very slight) performance boost by using the combined `equal_range` algorithm. `gather`, on the other hand, has no such advantage; and (as we've

Read the original HN comment ↗