Turns out you were the hacker all along

Such gains by limiting included headers is surprising to me, as it's the first thing anyone would suggest doing. Clang-tidy hints in QtCreator show warnings for includes that are not used. For me this works pretty well to keep build times due to headers under control. I wonder, if reducing the amount of included headers already yields such significant gains, what other gains can be had, and what LOC we're talking about. I've seen dramatic improvements by using pch for instance. Or isolating boost usage.

I found basic functioning of worktrees to fail with submodules. The worktree doesn't know about submodules, and again and again messes up the links to it. Basic pulling, switching branches, ..., all of this frequently fails to work because the link to the submodule is broken. I ended up creating the submodules as worktrees of a separate checkout of the submodule repo, and recreating these submodule worktrees over and over. I pretty much stopped using worktrees at that point.

Have you tried the global git config to enable recursive over sub modules by default?

Nope, fingers crossed it helps for you ;) Unrelated to worktrees but: in the end I like submodules in theory but found them to be absolutely terrible in practice, that's without even factoring in the worktrees. So we went back to a monorepo.

And then those methods grow and grow, or stop making sense, or start meaning something else, and you would have to go through the same abstract-deprecate-remove again. Rinse and repeat and if you do this regularly enough you have web development where you get your feet swept from under you every couple of years.

It's a bit of a pick your poison situation, for me the backwards compatibility path is the right call here though.

Indeed. They say they've been repeatedly featured on the front page of HN and the site didn't fall over, I've seen many examples that did.

This presented a fraudulent focus on diversity.

What a day to be able to read

I agree with what you're saying even though I do think a lot of C++'s bad rep comes either from C or from pre-C++11 code. I also think that modern code should include clang-tidy in the CI, and if so at least simple mistakes like in OPs code would be flagged with "warning: Use of memory after it is freed [clang-analyzer-cplusplus.NewDelete]"

https://clang-tidy.godbolt.org/z/8E169bons

Note that all of the warnings in there are valid and should be fixed, so it's not like wading through a see of false positives. That being said, the post is interesting in its explanation of why the example does what it does. Too bad all of the other stuff in there is bonkers.

I wonder if the language could be updated so these extra std::move invocations actually become harmless? return std::move is something that I see used quite a bit.

Thanks for posting, we use scratch in our montly CoderDojo, will be certain to give this a look!

I think motivation is a bit more nuanced than that. Also what is said isn't restricted to programmers. Money is an external motivator, which means it isn't really motivating as in providing fulfillment and energy when doing a job. It can give you a reason to to the job, "it pays the bills" or "it pays the bills extremely well", but that's something different.

That being said, I do look for jobs where I am motivated about the projects and the environment. In fact this is the main thing I evaluate when applying for a position. I also expect to be (and am) well-paid but I'm not aiming for the top bucks, because those jobs don't interest me. I'm spending 8 hours a day doing this work, a big majority of the high-quality hours of the week are sunk into the job. I'm happy I get to spend them doing things I enjoy, with people I enjoy working with, as opposed to having to slog through them just because I need the money.

BOOST_OUTCOME_TRYX may be what you're looking for. It's only available on gcc and clang though.

I wonder if it would be possible to force people to pay for usage with licensing instead of what was tried here?