Software Engineering Is About Tradeoffs
summary
Compares concrete C++ tradeoffs with results from live votes: three string SSO layouts (GCC 32B, LLVM 24‑byte SSO, Facebook 23B) and the cost/benefit of fewer branches versus smaller moves; exception‑safety levels and std::variant’s value‑by‑exception vs Boost’s heap‑backed strong guarantee; mp‑units offers four APIs (dimension aliases, unit aliases, named unit objects, UD literals) with compilation and standardization costs — the room favors quantity references; doncasting eases errors/debugging but provokes ODR problems unless systems are globally defined.
AI-written summary · about
chapters (21)
- 0:00Intro
- 1:13Problem Solving vs. Point of View
- 2:57The cost of finding the best solution
- 5:44std::string (simplified)
- 15:24How often do you analyze exception safety of your code?
- 17:18The importance of the Exception Safety Guarantees
- 17:53Imagine the C++ Standard Library with only Basic Exception Safety Guarantee
- 21:01Never-Empty Guarantee of Boost.Variant
- 28:43Unit-Specific Aliases: Example
- 31:03Quantity References: Example
- 34:08User Defined Literals: Example
- 36:06Standardization takes time
- 36:45Comparison
- 40:55One Definition Rule (ODR) - Translation Unit
- 41:10One Definition Rule (ODR) - Program
- 42:08Problem: One Definition Rule Violation
- 43:18But this is how some customization points behave
- 45:19Solution #1: Keep it as it is
- 46:47Compile-time error when resulting dimension or unit is
- 48:39Get rid of the Downcasting Facility
- 52:15Designing is Hard
related talks
58mSoftware Engineering Is About Tradeoffs
01h 29mWhat Does It Take to Implement the C++ Standard Library?
46mThoughtful Software Engineering
01h 37mC++ And Beyond: Discussion
01h 00m“State Machines Battlefield - Naive vs STL vs Boost”
32mC++ Standard Library "Little Things”
58mOO Considered Harmful
54mWriting C++ to Be Read