maddy VS scope_guard

Since I offloaded my markdown parsing to maddy, I did not test for it because it was not my own code. As a result, it was difficult to find parts that I could test. I mostly created my test cases for end to end testing. Since the number of things to test for is always numerous, I ended up finding a few things I could test for. But, I definitely am not satisfied with the number of tests I currently have and will be adding more in the future.

Across all the JavaScript-based SSGs, palpatine is developed from the ground up using C++ and CMake as the build system. As the developer and maintainer of palpatine my main concern is to make it lightning fast compared to others. Currently, palpatine1.5 can generate a static site in less than 1 second. I've also made sure that it is easy to use, with a simple command line interface. The documentation is also precise and easy to follow. However, it is lacking one of the core features, supporting markdown files fully. I've been working on this feature for the past few days and I found a header-only Markdown parser library maddy. But it seems that it has been more than a year since the last commit was made to the library. I'm not sure if it is still being maintained. CMake was quite upset about how outdated it was.

Taking inspiration from Docusaurus, I added full markdown parsing support to my SSG. I chose to add this because it was a core component of my SSG that remained incomplete. Instead of adding a nice-to-have feature, I figured it would be best to complete the core functionality of my SSG first. Instead of coding my own markdown parsing, it was much easier to simply use a markdown parsing library which already existed. I did this by using a maddy, a C++ markdown parsing library. The process of using the library was very straightforward, although calling its methods did noticeably slow down the html generation. After verifying that it worked with my SSG, I removed my initial implementation of markdown parsing.

E.g. see this implementation: https://ricab.github.io/scope_guard/

But also I should make the point that you generally don't need to write defer-like statements at all when using RAII because it's implemented in the actual type. So it's only more code overall for types that are used only once or maybe twice.

Meanwhile I will check and use https://github.com/ricab/scope_guard

> low level details leak into your high level description of code, making the two coupled. You can’t make them invisible.

It's your job to make it not to leak. You have to write Modern C++ wrappers around C libs.

Similarity, The same can be said for Java. You can do low level in Java.

C++ is not C. C++ has backward compatibility with C.

Look at Boost folks, they wrote a Modern C++ wrapper around a C HTTP parser.

> And as I said, I’m familiar with RAII, it’s really great when the given object is scope-based, but can’t do anything otherwise.

Nothing is impossible.

You can use Scope Exit Guard with QT Widget.

https://github.com/ricab/scope_guard

> And if the new subclass has some non-standard object life cycle you HAVE to handle that case somewhere else, modifying another aspect of the code. It is not invisible, unless you want leaking code/memory corruption.

Again, Scope Exit Guards solve your problem!