Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Groups
  • Search
  • Get Qt Extensions
  • Unsolved
Collapse
Brand Logo
  1. Home
  2. Special Interest Groups
  3. C++ Gurus
  4. How rigorous are you about using const?
Forum Updated to NodeBB v4.3 + New Features

How rigorous are you about using const?

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Solved C++ Gurus
34 Posts 11 Posters 6.8k Views 9 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • K koahnig

    @JonB

    You have a compile error with your code above ;)

    Personally I see const simply as a help/assistence to avoid nasty hard to find changes of content of members.
    So probably I will not end up in C++ heaven.

    My question would if "const" helps in some savings during execution?

    BTW I started first with FORTRAN IV and punching cards. That is embarrassing. :)

    [koahnig: edited]

    sierdzioS Offline
    sierdzioS Offline
    sierdzio
    Moderators
    wrote on last edited by
    #3

    @koahnig said in How rigorous are you about using const?:

    My question would if "const" helps in some savings during execution?

    That's one thing to consider. One "gotcha" here is that you'll need to know when compiler can optimize const stuff and when not. IMO it's easier to use it everywhere and compiler will figure it out :P

    Another thing to consider is:

    should it be possible to modify this value? If another developer (or you next week) modifies this code, can they break something silently by modifying this value?

    In either case, if answer is "yes", const should be added, I think.

    I tend to pepper my code with const absolutely everywhere but I don't think it's a sane approach. I guess it's just easier for me to apply it everywhere and not thing about whether it's really needed or not :P

    (Z(:^

    1 Reply Last reply
    1
    • K koahnig

      @JonB

      You have a compile error with your code above ;)

      Personally I see const simply as a help/assistence to avoid nasty hard to find changes of content of members.
      So probably I will not end up in C++ heaven.

      My question would if "const" helps in some savings during execution?

      BTW I started first with FORTRAN IV and punching cards. That is embarrassing. :)

      [koahnig: edited]

      JonBJ Offline
      JonBJ Offline
      JonB
      wrote on last edited by JonB
      #4

      @koahnig said in How rigorous are you about using const?:

      BTW I started first with FORTRAN IV and punching cards.

      OMG! OK, I feel like a youngster now... ;-)

      @sierdzio
      Remember, I am not asking about member variables/methods, where you need to get your const right. I am talking about: I have a non-const something to which I want to point a temporary, local variable, and I turn out only to be needing to do const things through this variable. Do you never/sometimes/always bother to make your temp var const, just because you feel like it's good practice? Personally I don't care about any efficiency of code generated here.

      sierdzioS 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • JonBJ JonB

        @koahnig said in How rigorous are you about using const?:

        BTW I started first with FORTRAN IV and punching cards.

        OMG! OK, I feel like a youngster now... ;-)

        @sierdzio
        Remember, I am not asking about member variables/methods, where you need to get your const right. I am talking about: I have a non-const something to which I want to point a temporary, local variable, and I turn out only to be needing to do const things through this variable. Do you never/sometimes/always bother to make your temp var const, just because you feel like it's good practice? Personally I don't care about any efficiency of code generated here.

        sierdzioS Offline
        sierdzioS Offline
        sierdzio
        Moderators
        wrote on last edited by
        #5

        @JonB said in How rigorous are you about using const?:

        @koahnig said in How rigorous are you about using const?:

        BTW I started first with FORTRAN IV and punching cards.

        OMG! OK, I feel like a youngster now... ;-)

        @sierdzio
        Remember, I am not asking about member variables/methods, where you need to get your const right. I am talking about: I have a non-const something to which I want to point a temporary, local variable, and I turn out only to be needing to do const things through this variable. Do you never/sometimes/always bother to make your temp var const, just because you feel like it's good practice? Personally I don't care about any efficiency of code generated here.

        Yes, I know you talk about local temporaries. I always use const for those. But I don't have any strong argument for it.

        (Z(:^

        1 Reply Last reply
        1
        • fcarneyF Offline
          fcarneyF Offline
          fcarney
          wrote on last edited by
          #6

          @sierdzio said in How rigorous are you about using const?:

          But I don't have any strong argument for it.

          There is strong evidence of avoiding mutable global variables due to tracking down the code that made the change that breaks everything else. So one could make the argument that a similar problem could occur within a function scope as well. Reducing mutability probably helps reduce certain classes of bugs. I was introduced to this concept in python. The reason python has comprehensions (list, dict, etc) is to reduce variable usage in loops. Variable uses in loops in supposed to be a source of a certain class of bugs. I also see functional programmers going to extremes to reduce mutability as well. Though I am unclear as to all the reasons for that. I have spent of fair amount of time trying to internalize FP concepts and still don't understand the why of FP. My main problem has been that a loop designed using an imperative approach can easily take 3 or 4 loops in FP. Whatever, I do think reducing mutability can help reasoning about a problem, which is why they do this. To enforce that constraint. There is probably a dissertation somewhere about this.

          C++ is a perfectly valid school of magic.

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • JonBJ Offline
            JonBJ Offline
            JonB
            wrote on last edited by JonB
            #7

            OK, since we're on a roll, let's push the boat out!

            Do you bother to put const against simple value types in, say, formal parameters of a function?

            void person_function(const int age, const double weight, const bool is_female)
            {
                const int next_birthday = age + 1;
                if (! is_female)
                    qDebug() << next_birthday << weight / age;
            }
            

            If so, I think I'll want a const key on my keyboard because I'm going to be typing it so often!

            K 1 Reply Last reply
            1
            • JonBJ JonB

              OK, since we're on a roll, let's push the boat out!

              Do you bother to put const against simple value types in, say, formal parameters of a function?

              void person_function(const int age, const double weight, const bool is_female)
              {
                  const int next_birthday = age + 1;
                  if (! is_female)
                      qDebug() << next_birthday << weight / age;
              }
              

              If so, I think I'll want a const key on my keyboard because I'm going to be typing it so often!

              K Offline
              K Offline
              koahnig
              wrote on last edited by
              #8

              @JonB said in How rigorous are you about using const?:

              OK, since we're on a roll, let's push the boat out!

              Do you bother to put const against simple value types in, say, formal parameters of a function?

              void person_function(const int age, const double weight, const bool is_female)
              {
                  const int next_birthday = age + 1;
                  if (! is_female)
                      qDebug() << next_birthday << weight / age;
              }
              

              If so, I think I'll want a const key on my keyboard because I'm going to be typing it so often!

              Personally that would be too much const here. Certainly it does not harm, but it is completely useless in the parameter list, because it is to the exterior const anyhow. I could see only some advantages for rather large routines, when you need to ensure that you are not accidentially changing the variable.

              Vote the answer(s) that helped you to solve your issue(s)

              JonBJ sierdzioS 2 Replies Last reply
              1
              • K koahnig

                @JonB said in How rigorous are you about using const?:

                OK, since we're on a roll, let's push the boat out!

                Do you bother to put const against simple value types in, say, formal parameters of a function?

                void person_function(const int age, const double weight, const bool is_female)
                {
                    const int next_birthday = age + 1;
                    if (! is_female)
                        qDebug() << next_birthday << weight / age;
                }
                

                If so, I think I'll want a const key on my keyboard because I'm going to be typing it so often!

                Personally that would be too much const here. Certainly it does not harm, but it is completely useless in the parameter list, because it is to the exterior const anyhow. I could see only some advantages for rather large routines, when you need to ensure that you are not accidentially changing the variable.

                JonBJ Offline
                JonBJ Offline
                JonB
                wrote on last edited by JonB
                #9

                @koahnig
                Yep, that's fine by me! I just wanted to know what you C++-long-timers do/don't do :)

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • Chris KawaC Offline
                  Chris KawaC Offline
                  Chris Kawa
                  Lifetime Qt Champion
                  wrote on last edited by Chris Kawa
                  #10

                  I believe that adding const on parameters passed by value is a bit of a language design problem.
                  It's a copy, so adding const in the interface of the function exposes details of internal implementation of the function - you know it won't be modified inside, but you shouldn't have to know that. If you're giving the function a copy it's not your business whether it modifies the copy or not. You're not getting it back after all. On the other hand you might want that const internally and adding it in the param declaration is the only way. So there's a bit of a problem - you don't want that const externally but you do want it internally.
                  And here it gets hairy, because a little known fact about C++ is that this is perfectly valid:

                  class Foo {
                      void Bar(int);
                  };
                  
                  void Foo::Bar(const int) {}
                  

                  so you can legally eat cake and have cake at the same time. But this is so obscure and unexpected that you don't see that done in practice. Personally I just don't use const here.

                  As for const on local parameters - I use it not on some principle or for possible optimizations but for far more trivial reasons. I work on a massive code base and using const on locals is a great way to catch interface bugs.

                  EDIT: Scratch that. I mixed it with another pattern :P

                  K 1 Reply Last reply
                  2
                  • mrjjM Offline
                    mrjjM Offline
                    mrjj
                    Lifetime Qt Champion
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #11

                    Hi
                    I never used it for temp variables or by copy parameters as the gain seems slim.
                    However, const is vital for protecting data from being modified by a sub-function and
                    also to clearly state in an interfaces that a function will not alter your data.

                    Btw. It could be fun to develop some test cases to validate the decades old saying that const allows the
                    compiler to optimize the code as we never really saw any speed gains during profiling.
                    Not saying its not true, but at least with 3 different compilers for embedded development, the
                    profiler showed no speed gains with const.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • K koahnig

                      @JonB said in How rigorous are you about using const?:

                      OK, since we're on a roll, let's push the boat out!

                      Do you bother to put const against simple value types in, say, formal parameters of a function?

                      void person_function(const int age, const double weight, const bool is_female)
                      {
                          const int next_birthday = age + 1;
                          if (! is_female)
                              qDebug() << next_birthday << weight / age;
                      }
                      

                      If so, I think I'll want a const key on my keyboard because I'm going to be typing it so often!

                      Personally that would be too much const here. Certainly it does not harm, but it is completely useless in the parameter list, because it is to the exterior const anyhow. I could see only some advantages for rather large routines, when you need to ensure that you are not accidentially changing the variable.

                      sierdzioS Offline
                      sierdzioS Offline
                      sierdzio
                      Moderators
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #12

                      @koahnig said in How rigorous are you about using const?:

                      void person_function(const int age, const double weight, const bool is_female)

                      I started using const also in parameters after I joined one project where it was the convention.

                      It does have some merits - when implementing a function, you do expect the input parameter to have the same value. But when it's not const, you can modify and forget that you did so, leading to bugs. But again, it's not a strong argument or a big issue.

                      (Z(:^

                      K 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • Chris KawaC Chris Kawa

                        I believe that adding const on parameters passed by value is a bit of a language design problem.
                        It's a copy, so adding const in the interface of the function exposes details of internal implementation of the function - you know it won't be modified inside, but you shouldn't have to know that. If you're giving the function a copy it's not your business whether it modifies the copy or not. You're not getting it back after all. On the other hand you might want that const internally and adding it in the param declaration is the only way. So there's a bit of a problem - you don't want that const externally but you do want it internally.
                        And here it gets hairy, because a little known fact about C++ is that this is perfectly valid:

                        class Foo {
                            void Bar(int);
                        };
                        
                        void Foo::Bar(const int) {}
                        

                        so you can legally eat cake and have cake at the same time. But this is so obscure and unexpected that you don't see that done in practice. Personally I just don't use const here.

                        As for const on local parameters - I use it not on some principle or for possible optimizations but for far more trivial reasons. I work on a massive code base and using const on locals is a great way to catch interface bugs.

                        EDIT: Scratch that. I mixed it with another pattern :P

                        K Offline
                        K Offline
                        koahnig
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #13

                        @Chris-Kawa said in How rigorous are you about using const?:

                        I believe that adding const on parameters passed by value is a bit of a language design problem.
                        It's a copy, so adding const in the interface of the function exposes details of internal implementation of the function - you know it won't be modified inside, but you shouldn't have to know that. If you're giving the function a copy it's not your business whether it modifies the copy or not. You're not getting it back after all. On the other hand you might want that const internally and adding it in the param declaration is the only way. So there's a bit of a problem - you don't want that const externally but you do want it internally.
                        And here it gets hairy, because a little known fact about C++ is that this is perfectly valid:

                        class Foo {
                            void Bar(int);
                        };
                        
                        void Foo::Bar(const int) {}
                        

                        so you can legally eat cake and have cake at the same time. But this is so obscure and unexpected that you don't see that done in practice. Personally I just don't use const here.

                        As for const on local parameters - I use it not on some principle or for possible optimizations but for far more trivial reasons. I work on a massive code base and using const on locals is a great way to catch interface bugs.

                        EDIT: Scratch that. I mixed it with another pattern :P

                        I would not be concerned about implementation details presented to the outside. At the day's end you could use it to stray wrong assumptions to people trying to interpret such details. If you want tohide you can and will hide implementation details. The easiest way is using a const reference to the input parameter and use the reference only. No cost after compilation to my understanding.

                        Vote the answer(s) that helped you to solve your issue(s)

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • sierdzioS sierdzio

                          @koahnig said in How rigorous are you about using const?:

                          void person_function(const int age, const double weight, const bool is_female)

                          I started using const also in parameters after I joined one project where it was the convention.

                          It does have some merits - when implementing a function, you do expect the input parameter to have the same value. But when it's not const, you can modify and forget that you did so, leading to bugs. But again, it's not a strong argument or a big issue.

                          K Offline
                          K Offline
                          koahnig
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #14

                          @sierdzio said in How rigorous are you about using const?:

                          @koahnig said in How rigorous are you about using const?:

                          void person_function(const int age, const double weight, const bool is_female)

                          I started using const also in parameters after I joined one project where it was the convention.

                          It does have some merits - when implementing a function, you do expect the input parameter to have the same value. But when it's not const, you can modify and forget that you did so, leading to bugs. But again, it's not a strong argument or a big issue.

                          If there is a project with that rule, I would simply follow. Sometimes there is no need to have useless time-consuming fights.
                          As I have stated larger routines may have sometimes the issue, that you need to ensure to the input value to the end. However, I would not do it directly through a const in the parameter list.

                          @mrjj said in How rigorous are you about using const?:

                          Btw. It could be fun to develop some test cases to validate the decades old saying that const allows the
                          compiler to optimize the code as we never really saw any speed gains during profiling.
                          Not saying its not true, but at least with 3 different compilers for embedded development, the
                          profiler showed no speed gains with const.

                          I would be really interested to see construct where you can verify cpu consumption advantages of const. Whenever I have tried to see such advantages it always ended with cannot decide. However, that might be a compiler implementation issue.

                          Vote the answer(s) that helped you to solve your issue(s)

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • Kent-DorfmanK Offline
                            Kent-DorfmanK Offline
                            Kent-Dorfman
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #15

                            The stench of const will permiate a class structure and make it a royal PITA to get things to compile with brain dead enhanced warnings all enabled...but that's what happens when a traditionally artistic field turns into assembly line work governed by poor programmers who feel they need to stifle true creativity with "safety rules" to given them some feeling of control over things they really don't understand.

                            When C++ was very Cish and I could treat memory as I saw fit, but had some nice OO additions, I liked it...Modern C++ (especially in commercial environments) is more of a SCRUM boondoggle where you spend more time documenting why you cannot do something than actually solving programming problems with creative and elegant solutions....I really need to retire.

                            Chris KawaC 1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • Kent-DorfmanK Kent-Dorfman

                              The stench of const will permiate a class structure and make it a royal PITA to get things to compile with brain dead enhanced warnings all enabled...but that's what happens when a traditionally artistic field turns into assembly line work governed by poor programmers who feel they need to stifle true creativity with "safety rules" to given them some feeling of control over things they really don't understand.

                              When C++ was very Cish and I could treat memory as I saw fit, but had some nice OO additions, I liked it...Modern C++ (especially in commercial environments) is more of a SCRUM boondoggle where you spend more time documenting why you cannot do something than actually solving programming problems with creative and elegant solutions....I really need to retire.

                              Chris KawaC Offline
                              Chris KawaC Offline
                              Chris Kawa
                              Lifetime Qt Champion
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #16

                              @Kent-Dorfman:

                              but that's what happens when a traditionally artistic field turns into assembly line work governed by poor programmers

                              You seem angry :) Const was not invented as a tool to keep poor programmers in check. It was introduced by quite smart people that recognized reoccurring problems of mutability in ever growing code bases. When you work with multi-million line project it's simply impossible to hold every dependency and restriction in your head and immutability is a great tool to help with that. There's nothing mandatory about it. Like any other tool you use it as you see fit, but it's been demonstrated time and again that restricting mutability of the system lifts its quality quite a lot. If it were up to me I'd make const the default and only declare mutable things that I know need to change (just with a shorter keyword than mutable maybe).

                              @Kent-Dorfman:

                              When C++ was very Cish and I could treat memory as I saw fit, but had some nice OO additions, I liked it

                              Nothing changed in that regard in C++. You can still play with bits, bytes, alignment, paging etc. There are more restrictions for memory access these days but they are imposed on the OS level, not language level and that's mostly because malware and internet. I'm sure it's obvious to you that exposing entire raw memory to a small utility in a server cluster or to any program in an ever online world is a bad idea.

                              @Kent-Dorfman:

                              Modern C++ (especially in commercial environments) is more of a SCRUM boondoggle

                              Maybe you just picked the wrong project then? They are not all the same. The one I'm working on at least sure doesn't feel like that. And we don't use SCRUM :)

                              @Kent-Dorfman:

                              I really need to retire.

                              Or just a break to recharge your batteries and a project that better fits your liking? Cheer up. It's not all doom and gloom ;)

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              3
                              • mrjjM Offline
                                mrjjM Offline
                                mrjj
                                Lifetime Qt Champion
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #17

                                @Chris-Kawa said i

                                If it were up to me I'd make const the default and only declare mutable things that I know need to change (just with a shorter keyword than mutable maybe).

                                This i wanted of for decades. It would break a lot of code but if it was a compile flag/opt in then it could work.

                                So please run for c++ committee,so i can vote for you 😋

                                Chris KawaC sierdzioS 2 Replies Last reply
                                2
                                • mrjjM mrjj

                                  @Chris-Kawa said i

                                  If it were up to me I'd make const the default and only declare mutable things that I know need to change (just with a shorter keyword than mutable maybe).

                                  This i wanted of for decades. It would break a lot of code but if it was a compile flag/opt in then it could work.

                                  So please run for c++ committee,so i can vote for you 😋

                                  Chris KawaC Offline
                                  Chris KawaC Offline
                                  Chris Kawa
                                  Lifetime Qt Champion
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #18

                                  @mrjj said:

                                  This i wanted of for decades. It would break a lot of code but if it was a compile flag/opt in then it could work.
                                  So please run for c++ committee,so i can vote for you

                                  Haha, thanks, but it's just not gonna happen in C++. It's far too late and adding it even as an option would just ugly split the community. Imagine you have a large project which uses it and want to use a small utility library that doesn't They're incompatible on interface level. Bummer.

                                  mrjjM 1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • Chris KawaC Chris Kawa

                                    @mrjj said:

                                    This i wanted of for decades. It would break a lot of code but if it was a compile flag/opt in then it could work.
                                    So please run for c++ committee,so i can vote for you

                                    Haha, thanks, but it's just not gonna happen in C++. It's far too late and adding it even as an option would just ugly split the community. Imagine you have a large project which uses it and want to use a small utility library that doesn't They're incompatible on interface level. Bummer.

                                    mrjjM Offline
                                    mrjjM Offline
                                    mrjj
                                    Lifetime Qt Champion
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #19

                                    @Chris-Kawa
                                    Hehe yeah i know in practice it would be hard to manage but on the other hand, we survived
                                    years of template hell where you were never sure if the compiler would support it and still today
                                    c++ is not a uniform thing between compiler vendors even it has become much better.

                                    So i still think it would be great for new projects and 5 years later many of the lib you would use, would be compilable with this on.

                                    But yeah its a 99% pipe dream.

                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • mrjjM mrjj

                                      @Chris-Kawa said i

                                      If it were up to me I'd make const the default and only declare mutable things that I know need to change (just with a shorter keyword than mutable maybe).

                                      This i wanted of for decades. It would break a lot of code but if it was a compile flag/opt in then it could work.

                                      So please run for c++ committee,so i can vote for you 😋

                                      sierdzioS Offline
                                      sierdzioS Offline
                                      sierdzio
                                      Moderators
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #20

                                      @mrjj said in How rigorous are you about using const?:

                                      @Chris-Kawa said i

                                      If it were up to me I'd make const the default and only declare mutable things that I know need to change (just with a shorter keyword than mutable maybe).

                                      This i wanted of for decades. It would break a lot of code but if it was a compile flag/opt in then it could work.

                                      So please run for c++ committee,so i can vote for you 😋

                                      Oh, +1 to that :D

                                      (Z(:^

                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • Kent-DorfmanK Offline
                                        Kent-DorfmanK Offline
                                        Kent-Dorfman
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #21

                                        @Chris-Kawa Look man, I've been coding since the days of Fortran-4 and have forgotten more languages than typical programmers even know exist. I was brought up in a generation where you turned 12 and you found a 22lr under the christmas tree, and your dad simply said, "don't hurt anyone". In short, we didn't have all these ridiculous, hard to swallow rules designed to "protect us from ourselves", and because management didn't trust us...As was said in "real programmers don't use Pascal" "real programmers don't like WYSIWYG. We want you asked for it, you got." And I'm always going to challenge those blanket statements about obscure studies and cases that "have proven time and time again" a particular point of view. More often than not they are simple dogma to support a persons particular religion. So yeah, maybe I can tune a compiler with flags to get behaviour that doesn't rub me raw...but...it sure as hades ain't gonna fly with the code nazis who are 1) half my age, 2) were poor programmers so they ended up being leads, 3) are on a quest to lower everyone to a least common denominator, and 4) are a big part of the mission to make "process" more important than "product"...becuase they don't really understand the product and feel empowered by introducing process instead.

                                        Angry? Well, very jaded, to say the least...Until you've been a 50 yo programmer who had a 33yo lead tell you he was going to "teach you to program" because he didn't want to look at a piece of code and be able to tell who wrote it out of a team of five...well, our experiences are probably very different.

                                        Anyway, I digres...forgive the rant.

                                        Chris KawaC 1 Reply Last reply
                                        1
                                        • Kent-DorfmanK Kent-Dorfman

                                          @Chris-Kawa Look man, I've been coding since the days of Fortran-4 and have forgotten more languages than typical programmers even know exist. I was brought up in a generation where you turned 12 and you found a 22lr under the christmas tree, and your dad simply said, "don't hurt anyone". In short, we didn't have all these ridiculous, hard to swallow rules designed to "protect us from ourselves", and because management didn't trust us...As was said in "real programmers don't use Pascal" "real programmers don't like WYSIWYG. We want you asked for it, you got." And I'm always going to challenge those blanket statements about obscure studies and cases that "have proven time and time again" a particular point of view. More often than not they are simple dogma to support a persons particular religion. So yeah, maybe I can tune a compiler with flags to get behaviour that doesn't rub me raw...but...it sure as hades ain't gonna fly with the code nazis who are 1) half my age, 2) were poor programmers so they ended up being leads, 3) are on a quest to lower everyone to a least common denominator, and 4) are a big part of the mission to make "process" more important than "product"...becuase they don't really understand the product and feel empowered by introducing process instead.

                                          Angry? Well, very jaded, to say the least...Until you've been a 50 yo programmer who had a 33yo lead tell you he was going to "teach you to program" because he didn't want to look at a piece of code and be able to tell who wrote it out of a team of five...well, our experiences are probably very different.

                                          Anyway, I digres...forgive the rant.

                                          Chris KawaC Offline
                                          Chris KawaC Offline
                                          Chris Kawa
                                          Lifetime Qt Champion
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #22

                                          @Kent-Dorfman said:

                                          Anyway, I digres...forgive the rant.

                                          No problem. I can see where you come from. The longer you're in the more stuff accumulates and it's good to let some of it out from time to time. We're here for (and with) you ;)

                                          Until you've been a 50 yo programmer who had a 33yo lead tell you he was going to "teach you to program" because he didn't want to look at a piece of code and be able to tell who wrote it out of a team of five...well, our experiences are probably very different.

                                          Not by much, but yeah and I'm sorry to hear that yours is like this. I can only again tell you it's not everywhere like that.

                                          Where I'm at I get along with people both twice and half my age. Actually I'm often the guy that tries to make those two groups talk to each other, because, from what I've seen, that's when magic truly happens :) With the older gen we do have a relation where I can maybe hint them that they don't have to copy paste that function 30 times if they just use a simplest template and I get to see some cool low level tricks they developed over the years to pass along to the younger staff. It can be really synergetic if you let it. It's only "us vs them" if you all make it so. With the younglings it's similar. Sure, you can meet some arogant a-holes thinking they know everything because they followed a tutorial on youtube, but you either whack some sense into them or just part ways. They will learn eventually or they won't and go become a manager at another company ;) That's just how the industry rolls. You can get grumpy about the system or learn to live within it and shape it from the inside.

                                          I mean look at it from the perspective of a fresh fish in the pond. Here you come, sure of yourself, full of enthusiasm and there along shows up this whiny grandpa that says everything you do is wrong and that's not how it was done in his days... It doesn't matter that you're right. You're not gonna have a very good working relation this way and you won't pass any of the knowledge you undoubtedly amassed over the years. To make someone learn you first need them to listen and for that to happen they must either like you, or at least tolerate you. The best way to make someone change their ways is to make them believe they came up with it themselves, not by hammering into them that their way is bad. Works wonders with some clueless management in my experience ;) I particularly like the trick of giving them two options, one of which is so bad they can't possibly choose it so you get your way and them being proud of themselves when it turns out ok. Win win :)

                                          And I'm always going to challenge those blanket statements about obscure studies and cases that "have proven time and time again" a particular point of view.

                                          Fair enough. That's something I really like in people and I do try to avoid empty words not backed up by some data. It's just not always feasible to tie in actual scientific articles and lengthy study summaries into ad hoc discussions like this. I'll try to be more rigorous about that though. Thanks for pointing that out.

                                          In short, we didn't have all these ridiculous, hard to swallow rules designed to "protect us from ourselves", and because management didn't trust us

                                          Yeah, sure, but I think you're projecting a bit too much. Not every language feature after early C is like that. const is very much not so and was introduced by the old timers like you actually to improve. It was widely adopted into other languages ever since because it's just a really useful feature, not because some knowitall said so.

                                          1. are a big part of the mission to make "process" more important than "product"...becuase they don't really understand the product and feel empowered by introducing process instead.

                                          Yeah, I share the sentiment. There are people like that, but what are you gonna do? There's almost 8b people on the planet. You're gonna meet some of those no matter what. I met a person somewhat like that once. First I tried to work with them, then work around them and when that didn't work I just changed jobs. Turns out best decision in my career ;)

                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          2

                                          • Login

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups
                                          • Search
                                          • Get Qt Extensions
                                          • Unsolved