cppreference-doc VS STL

Rather than looking at good examples (which you should by all means do), add cppreference.com to you bookmarks and use it as your reference. By far the best C++ reference on the net. (from a C programmer who was thrown into C++ a decade ago -- slowly digesting C++20 now) Both StackOverflow.com and electronic.stackexchange.com are two additional QA sites that can help.

Sadly, not much. My method of learning is to get my hands dirty and waste a lot of time doing things wrong before I do them right. The only resource (outside of Google and StackOverflow) that I always had open was https://en.cppreference.com

In general, https://en.cppreference.com is your friend.

> As a C++ language reference I highly recommend https://en.cppreference.com

I'd be careful about such re-formulations of the Standard. When I was adding printf format checking to the D compiler, I discovered there were subtle discrepancies in the description of exactly how printf behaves. I went back to using the Standard.

Modern C++ code now looks very different to even C++11 code which is considered to be the start of modern C++.

"A Tour of C++" which has already been recommended is probably a good start to get back in the game. I think there was a new version coming out, but not sure what the current status about this is.

[https://en.cppreference.com](cppreference.com) is a good resource for me. It has documentation regarding the new standards as well and up to C++20 the examples are mostly complete, at least for the relevant things.

I can also recommend watching the "Back to Basics" talks on the CppCon youtube channel and once you are more familiar also the regular talks. They are great resources about practical topics.

Jason Turner's C++ Weekly videos are also a great resource. They are usually 10-15 minutes long videos that give you a good start to think about. Great way to learn something new every week.

At Google, at least, the style guide says to use snake case for variable names in C++ (but camel case for classes). As far as I can tell, this is also the convention in the C++ standard library.

Lets say that there's a file at https://en.cppreference.com/ called preferences.c. The command to download it would be wget https://en.cppreference.com/preferences.c

I would start with a direction of where to apply C++. Updating legacy code, working on embedded systems, creating financial application and creating high performant games are a few common option. Also sites like cppreference and Compiler Explorer/Godbolt are your friends in learning. CPlusPlus.com might help with legacy support as it stops with C++11.

Keep in mind that most YouTube C++ tutorials are garbage. Use www.learncpp.com instead as a tutorial, and https://en.cppreference.com as a language reference. Once you familiarize yourself with the language, you can learn the best practices using the C++ Core Guidelines.

The important thing to remember is that a concept exist and roughly what it's called, so you can look it up when you need to. You don't need to keep all the details in your head, that's what we have en.cppreference.com for.

Again, they are barely functional.

MSVC chokes on many standard-defined constructs: https://github.com/microsoft/STL/issues/1694

clang does not claim to be "mostly usable" at all - most papers are not implemented: https://clang.llvm.org/cxx_status.html#cxx20

And gcc will only start ot be usable with CMake when version 14 is released - that has not happened yet.

And, as I mentioned before, IDE support is either buggy (Visual Studio) or non-existing (any other IDE/OS). So you're off to writing in a text editor and hoping your compiler works to a somewhat usable degree. Yes, at some point people should start using modules, I agree, but to advise library maintainers to ship modularized code... the tooling just isn't there yet.

I mean, the GitHub issue is Microsoft trying to ship their standard library modularized, they employ some of the most capable folks on the planet and pay them big money to get that done, while metaphorically sitting next to the Microsoft compiler devs, and they barely, barely get it done (with bugs, as they themselves mention). This is too much for most other library maintainers.

Notice that there are in practice three distinct implementations of the C++ standard library. They're all awful to read though, here's Microsoft's std::vector https://github.com/microsoft/STL/blob/main/stl/inc/vector

However you're being slightly unfair because Rust's Vec is just defined (opaquely) as a RawVec plus a length value, so let's link RawVec, https://doc.rust-lang.org/src/alloc/raw_vec.rs.html -- RawVec is the part responsible for the messy problem of how to actually implement the growable array type.

Still, the existence of three C++ libraries with slightly different (or sometimes hugely different) quality of implementation means good C++ code can't depend on much beyond what the ISO document promises, and yet it must guard against the nonsense inflicted by all three and by lacks of the larger language. In particular everything must use the reserved prefix so that it's not smashed inadvertently by a macro, and lots of weird C++ idioms that preserve performance by sacrificing clarity of implementation are needed, even where you'd ordinarily sacrifice to get the development throughput win of everybody know what's going on. For example you'll see a lot of "pair" types bought into existence which are there to squirrel away a ZST that in C++ can't exist, using the Empty Base Optimisation. In Rust the language has ZSTs so they can just write what they meant.

Here is Microsoft's implementation of map in the standard library. I think of myself as a competent programmer / computer scientist. I couldn't write this: https://github.com/microsoft/STL/blob/f392449fb72d1a387ac502...

Be careful on Windows, the MSVC STL implementation uses the system time, so it can be badly impacted by clock adjustments: https://github.com/microsoft/STL/issues/718

Can you provide a link? If it affects import std;, I'd like to add it to my tracking issue.

Do you have a list of the bugs you've filed and their current status, like the one I have for the STL? I saw you mentioned 3 bugs 7 months ago, 2 of which were fixed in 17.6 and the third of which was a duplicate of an active bug ("deducing this" is known to not yet work with modules, which is why we don't define the feature-test macro to claim full support).

Yep. And look at our implementation's name: https://github.com/microsoft/STL