"Parse, don't validate" through the years with C++

Discussion (10 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

bregma•about 2 hours ago

Author has used LLMs to generate Java code in C++. It detracts from his point.

pjmlp•12 minutes ago

What Java code?

Regardless of how they might have used LLMs, I tend to have an issue with this kind of complaint, given the C++ example code on the Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software book, released in 1994, 2 years before Java was made public.

Or the examples from "Using the Booch Method: A Rational Approach", "Designing Object Oriented C++ Applications Using The Booch Method", or "Using the Booch Method: A Rational Approach".

Additional there are enough framework examples starting with Turbo Vision in 1990, MacAPP in 1989, OWL in 1991, MFC in 1992,....

Somehow a C++ style that was prevalent in the industry between 1990 and 1996, that I bet plenty of devs still have to maintain in 2026, has become "Java in C++".

SuperV1234•11 minutes ago

No, it doesn't.

jsymolon•about 2 hours ago

First thought, assuming that birth year starts at 1900 is bad for a number of reasons; one of which, "process this list of authors and ..."

What about everyone born before 1900?

alpinisme•about 2 hours ago

It’s a contrived example. And I have to assume the author intended it to be contrived given that he also put an upper bound at 1999 in an article written in 2026 in an industry that skews young.

But the pattern applies regardless of the validation logic.

Neywiny•about 2 hours ago

Or what if they were born after 1999?

It's just a toy example not a production ready birthday validation library.

psychoslave•about 1 hour ago

Assuming it is necessarily known which is the birth year of anyone assumed to have been in existence is already a big hypothesis if we go in that direction.

rienbdj•about 3 hours ago

C++ could use some do-notation

actionfromafar•about 1 hour ago

Disregarding the article for a second, has anyone else had the pattern that "parse don't validate" makes sense in object oriented style, but less sense in functional style programming? Like parsing and validating blurs into each other.

LittleLily•34 minutes ago

In my experience it makes even more sense in functional programming languages, not less, since they usually also have more powerful type systems that help with actually representing parsed vs unparsed data.

"Parse, don't validate" through the years with C++

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion (10 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews