Should I pass by const reference or by value?

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 พ.ย. 2024

ความคิดเห็น • 376

  • @youssefmohamedabbashabib613
    @youssefmohamedabbashabib613 ปีที่แล้ว +434

    Absolutely good idea. Divide the videos into multiple topics 🙏

    • @theuser1240
      @theuser1240 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      +1

    • @juny4351
      @juny4351 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      +1

    • @wiseskeshom4673
      @wiseskeshom4673 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      +1

    • @phizc
      @phizc ปีที่แล้ว +5

      Yup. This is the first code review video I've watched, so it definitely works 😃.

    • @AstuteJoe
      @AstuteJoe ปีที่แล้ว +1

      +1

  • @robertmoats1890
    @robertmoats1890 ปีที่แล้ว +69

    A completely agree with you that passing primitive data types by reference is not a great idea. It will most likely prevent compiler optimizations. However, I think its probably a good idea to pass custom types by reference, even if they are small. The reason being that their size (and internal behavior) can easily change in the future, without the programmer later realizing that these function parameters all need updated to reference types. After 20 years of programming, one thing I've learned is to treat everything I've touched as unstable and dynamic.

    • @sournois90
      @sournois90 10 หลายเดือนก่อน

      damn

  • @Lockdheart
    @Lockdheart ปีที่แล้ว +107

    I heartily approve of doing the code reviews by topic. If it tells you anything, this is the very first one of your code reviews I've ever watched--specifically because it wasn't ridiculously long, and I could see in the title that it was about something I might find useful.
    You might get fewer views per individual video this way, but I have a feeling you'll get *way* more total views overall.

    • @m4l490n
      @m4l490n ปีที่แล้ว +6

      I don't agree, I think he'll get even more views per video because they'll be short and more focused.

    • @emmanuelvazquez5036
      @emmanuelvazquez5036 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Same here. I once started like a 1h video of code review, but quickly I got lost and never finished.
      Instead, for this quick video I already entered knowing what was the topic, was direct to the point, easier to understand and, well, I saw to the end.

    • @thecwd8919
      @thecwd8919 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      I agree with this

  • @seargd1
    @seargd1 ปีที่แล้ว +29

    This was definitely more easily digestible and focussed than 40 minutes of code review that goes in five different directions. I smashed like so hard on this that I almost dropped my phone.

  • @vitormoreno1244
    @vitormoreno1244 ปีที่แล้ว +25

    Divide by multiple topics, that will help your channel on the long term as more videos will popup on TH-cam search. And that will help less skilled programmers(like me) to learn specific topics.

  • @aronseptianto8142
    @aronseptianto8142 ปีที่แล้ว +16

    this is absolutely a better format, not only because my attention span is garbage
    but also it really helps to build a library of "advice" video that's easily searchable even without the context of the code review
    this kind of advice is quite rare in a normal beginner tutorial and StackOverflow can be quite asinine about it
    this way your video can reach a broader audience who just need specific advice

  • @stvreumi
    @stvreumi ปีที่แล้ว +4

    I like the idea of splitting the code review video by topic! It taught me a lot. Hope to see you sharing more videos like this in the future.

  • @Balouxe
    @Balouxe ปีที่แล้ว +16

    This format is a good idea, and you could also add this video to the C++ series as it covers a pretty interesting topic that fits into it ! Cheers

    • @battosaijenkins946
      @battosaijenkins946 ปีที่แล้ว

      Heheheh... i know fools who const reference everything even boolean types and I'm like... 🤦‍♂🤦‍♂🤦‍♂

  • @amayesingnathan
    @amayesingnathan ปีที่แล้ว +2

    100% love the shorter videos. Recently I haven't been able to find the time watch longer code review videos, so breaking them down makes it much easier

  • @mateuszabramek7015
    @mateuszabramek7015 ปีที่แล้ว +9

    That "it gots darker here" got me 😂

  • @fabiannedelcu3492
    @fabiannedelcu3492 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    I really like the short, by topic code review!

  • @m4l490n
    @m4l490n ปีที่แล้ว +5

    I just want to join all those that have said that it is an excellent idea to divide the code reviews into smaller videos focusing on one concept. It is super useful!!! Also, you get the opportunity to explain the same concept in multiple and different code sets which will greatly help understand better the concept, you know, by looking at it from different angles and use cases.

  • @Spongman
    @Spongman ปีที่แล้ว +3

    This video is good advice, it's basically F.16 in the cpp core guidelines: For “in” parameters, pass cheaply-copied types by value and others by reference to const. F.15 has a really good diagram that illustrates all the choices.
    IMO it's a good idea to keep your argument definitions 'const', even when receiving value types. Especially in larger methods it's useful to know for certain that a given argument hasn't changed.
    Also, don't use 'new', 'array'/'vector' would trivially give you the all-important move constructor for that buffer.

  • @RelayComputer
    @RelayComputer ปีที่แล้ว +22

    Just look at the assembly code my friend, I bet you will get a couple of surprises, particularly with private methods. Hint: the compiler does not always honour the argument passing convention you specified

    • @andyyy1094
      @andyyy1094 ปีที่แล้ว

      can you go into a bit more detail? what exactly are you referring to

    • @RelayComputer
      @RelayComputer ปีที่แล้ว +8

      ​@@andyyy1094 I mean that you can write code meant to pass or return parameters by value, particularly long structs, but the compiler may decide to pass them by constant reference if such parameters are not modified inside the function and the function is contained in the same translation unit (C static function, or C++ private method). Furthermore, even if the function is not private, some compilers can go a step further and create two versions of the same function, one to be called (often inlined) using references when invoked from the same translation unit (regardless of what passing convention you specified), and another one ready for external calls. However, what is said in the video is correct and programmers should keep with good practices and never assume that the compiler will optimise everything

    • @urisinger3412
      @urisinger3412 ปีที่แล้ว

      Dont trust the compiler on everything, especially if you want to run things in debug mode.

    • @RelayComputer
      @RelayComputer ปีที่แล้ว

      @@urisinger3412 What you mean by don't trust the compiler? Compilers are by far the most trustable pieces of software in existence. Can't imagine the mess if it wasn't like that

    • @urisinger3412
      @urisinger3412 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@RelayComputer dont trust the compiler to optimize every stupid thing you do, they dont catch everything and those little things can add up

  • @PuraTvOyun
    @PuraTvOyun ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Great Idea go for it. That is the exact reason why I watch long code review videos.
    At any random time in a video, you give a specific knowledge for a specific situation that normal learning seriea doesn't even think about to teach us.
    For example this video enlighten me about r and l-values. Thank you for that. Learned C++ with your C++ series years ago and now I can develop custom tools for the games I make with Unreal Engine.

  • @animarain
    @animarain ปีที่แล้ว

    Yes!!! Please do that! Splitting it into parts and explaining different topic on each video would be so much helpful!

  • @stavrosmalagaris3352
    @stavrosmalagaris3352 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Splitting a long code review into more specific and shorter videos is a fantastic idea. As you said anyone could focus on particular topics that may be intersted in and understand a topic better without being overwhelmed

  • @decky1990
    @decky1990 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Really valid topic! Varies in a lot of things - threads and coroutines make things slightly trickier, but nice video

  • @djazz0
    @djazz0 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    So happy I'm not coding in C++ anymore. I use Nim and it checks the size of what you pass and chooses by reference or value at compile time. So if you pass an object, it gets sent as reference if it's above a certain threshold. Ints gets passed by value unless you use "var" (mutable reference).

  • @justindavis5960
    @justindavis5960 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Definitely prefer this format more than a longer video as it is easily digestible. It could also be more useful for people who just need information on a specific topic

  • @BlazingMarauderDCUO
    @BlazingMarauderDCUO ปีที่แล้ว

    Explaining the "why" of anything is extremely valuable, at least imho. throughout all of your content that I have watched, the most enjoyable is when you explain quite trivial things but explain the reasoning at a really low level.

  • @antonincarette8928
    @antonincarette8928 ปีที่แล้ว

    Very good idea - the fact to show more shorted (but specific) videos is (imho) more interesting and more appealing than big review videos.

    • @antonincarette8928
      @antonincarette8928 ปีที่แล้ว

      @thecherno3 OMG thank you! What did I won?! I can’t believe it! It is amaaaaaaaaazing! I hope you’re not a fake OMG! I hope it is a house! Is it a house? Or a 35 levels building in the middle of Central Park?! Or, more amazing, 15kg of twinkies!!!! I hope this is not fake OMG! WHAT IS A DM? HOW TO DM? WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF LIFE?! WILL « TRON 3 » BE A GOOD TRON SEQUEL? SO MUCH QUESTIONS!!!!!!!

  • @willchris7654
    @willchris7654 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    I think, at least for me, it'll be easier to learn and digest your videos in a smaller chunks format like how you use to do C++ tutorial. It'll also be easier to see what specific topic you're covering specifically and if later I need to come back to it, it'll be easier to search as well. Just my thought though. You're still one of my best mentor for programming :)

  • @harleensingh2531
    @harleensingh2531 ปีที่แล้ว

    As you said, a big video on this would be really cool. Thanks for all your work :)

  • @arispacegirl
    @arispacegirl ปีที่แล้ว

    making short code review responses that address very specific topics would be perfect for...well, shorts!
    I've seen a couple channels try out short "tips & tricks" videos around code and they've been very useful!!

  • @kent8547
    @kent8547 ปีที่แล้ว

    I look forward to your bigger video on this :) I also enjoy this style of code review more, it's more descriptive to what the video goes over

  • @brunooliveirasoares7489
    @brunooliveirasoares7489 ปีที่แล้ว

    Such a good idea!
    Please, more of these short videos!

  • @avtem
    @avtem ปีที่แล้ว

    i really liked this one. It's short and it's about one specific topic.

  • @matpietrzak
    @matpietrzak ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Good idea. Shorter videos but more specific targeting a given concept or issue. It 's gonna be more interesting.

  • @FatalExceptionz
    @FatalExceptionz ปีที่แล้ว +28

    Another thing to consider is that unnecessary passing by pointer/reference can also prevent the compiler from making certain microoptimizations

    • @DaddyFrosty
      @DaddyFrosty ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Oh shit I thought Const ref would help as opposed to impede that

    • @teranyan
      @teranyan ปีที่แล้ว +6

      @@DaddyFrosty It is exactly like that. Using const ref gives the compiler perfect information, it can choose to copy or not the uint. People who don't understand this and just spit out the "pass small types by value" ideology from 30 years ago, are frankly clueless. Const reference isn't some promise to use a pointer, it represents the abstraction of a read only object that already exists somewhere.

    • @piechulla1966
      @piechulla1966 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@teranyan C++ Core Guidelines F.16: For “in” parameters, pass cheaply-copied types by value and others by reference to const

    • @ABaumstumpf
      @ABaumstumpf ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@teranyan It depends on the function.
      Say something like "void multiplyVectorByValue( std::vector& vec, const& val)" - iterating over the vector and multiplying every member by val. here passing by reference can be a serious detriment if the compiler can not proof that "val" is not part of "vec" - cause then it has to re-load val on every iteration, preventing any loop-hoisting or vectorisation.

  • @TobotriebNightcore
    @TobotriebNightcore ปีที่แล้ว +9

    I like the Qt style: pass c++ (std)types by value, Qt objects by reference, and Qt objects where you transfer ownership by ptr

  • @Sebanisu
    @Sebanisu ปีที่แล้ว

    static_assert(std::is_trivially_copyable_t); Type trait can be used to test if your type is trivially copyable.

  • @stefanhellwig-lp4rg
    @stefanhellwig-lp4rg ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I also like the idea of splitting the code review into shorter videos. This let‘s one pick the topics of interest quickly and it‘s also easier to „digest“ ;-).

  • @bavovna_v_maskve
    @bavovna_v_maskve 4 วันที่ผ่านมา

    I agree that having separate videos on specific topics is better. I'm currently struggling with my side project in C++, and I can say I'm already pretty comfortable with templates and even type traits-topics considered quite complex-even though I've never used them before. But I still often struggle with basic things like passing by value, reference, or pointer, or knowing when it's better to use shared_ptr or unique_ptr, move semantics, etc. Probably that's because I've been employed as a Python developer for years, and I deal with abstractions and polymorphism with dynamic types every day, but some basic C++ concepts are new to me and others like me.

  • @anon_y_mousse
    @anon_y_mousse ปีที่แล้ว +5

    This is one of the few times when I actually agree with the design of C++. Since references are mostly transparent you can start with just passing by value and should you change to a more complex object in the future merely change the signature to include a const reference and have little trouble. Some languages make the boneheaded decision of either removing pointers and explicit reference documentation and everything is a reference. Some make the equally boneheaded decision of making references explicit all around which basically means they're just pointers. C++ actually did it right here.

    • @Spongman
      @Spongman ปีที่แล้ว +2

      references are just non-nullable pointers with a '.' accessor instead of '->'. who knows why k&r chose '->' instead of '.', but hey now we're stuck with it.

    • @Ich_liebe_brezeln
      @Ich_liebe_brezeln 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@Spongmanbecause it’s already used for normal objects. You can also use it with pointers but you gotta dereference them first, leaving you this
      (*obj).member
      And it becomes hard to handle when you deal with nested pointers like this:
      (*(*(*obj).member).attr).val
      So they invented -> to avoid typing the above
      obj->member->attr->val

    • @Spongman
      @Spongman 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@Ich_liebe_brezeln you missed my point. I’m saying that k&r could have just used ‘.’ for pointer indirect without ambiguity, since pointers themselves don’t have members.
      Your last expression could easily have been ‘obj.member.attr.val’.

    • @Ich_liebe_brezeln
      @Ich_liebe_brezeln 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@Spongman Oh well, now I get your point and I guess is not a bad idea. Maybe they wanted you to remember that you were dealing with pointers at all times… or didn’t really think that much about that.

  • @TheJohndward01
    @TheJohndward01 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    The part of the video where you said you should probably make an entire video about, I think it was around 2:15, that would be very helpful. The CPU is still very much unknown to me. And individual videos would be great especially as a playlist too.

  • @twipps7700
    @twipps7700 5 หลายเดือนก่อน

    thank you for clearing this confusion on my part!!

  • @sasha9245
    @sasha9245 ปีที่แล้ว

    It's also nice to understand the difference between passing by value as 'const uint32_t' or 'uint32_t'. Assuming the argument is in a register, for 'const uint32_t' compiler is safe not to create a copy, while for 'uint32_t' it might allocate another register as this argument might be changed inside a function.
    For example:
    uint32_t sum(uint32_t n) { uint32_t sum = 0; while (n > 0) sum += n--; return sum; }

  • @olo90
    @olo90 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Personally, both formats (longer video with timestamps) as well as short formats that are just focused on one part are fine. I'd say make the choice based on what gets more views (without having to resort to click-baity titles / screencaps with those "shocked face" looks).

  • @thelemonman2271
    @thelemonman2271 ปีที่แล้ว

    Holy shit I searching for something like this just a day or two ago. Chreno-sama smiles upon me 🙏

  • @Zarathustra0512
    @Zarathustra0512 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    fwiw, the "built-in C++ type" is std::uint32_t. uint32_t is a C alias that most (all major) C++ std library implementations happen to provide, but isn't part of the std

  • @0xKakashi
    @0xKakashi ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Never thought of this whenever using passing by const reference. Cherno sir 👌

  • @john.dough.
    @john.dough. ปีที่แล้ว

    love seeing this short and sweet!!

  • @yousufazad6914
    @yousufazad6914 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Yes, please. Short videos on a specific topics

  • @vsevolodnedora7779
    @vsevolodnedora7779 ปีที่แล้ว

    I found it useful, and I am more willing to watch a short video about a specific problem/thing in the code.

  • @sanduchicu7545
    @sanduchicu7545 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Great video as always!
    The short form videos I think are a lot better because, as you said, the video is more on-topic but not all over the place.
    However, I think for every code review you should first make a video to overview the project and show the improvements that you would do, maybe explaining briefly (not focus on just one improvement, like the flying dog game video) and then make separate videos on every important topic, explaining it in detail (just like you did in this video).

  • @DaveMacara89
    @DaveMacara89 ปีที่แล้ว

    Very insightful as always Cherno thanks!

  • @KristofNachtergaele
    @KristofNachtergaele ปีที่แล้ว

    This format would indeed be better than the massive code reviews, i skip those but this had a title that described what was being talked about and interested me and turned out to be useful.

  • @rhoward99
    @rhoward99 ปีที่แล้ว

    Multiple topic videos per review would be great!

  • @AntoniGawlikowski
    @AntoniGawlikowski ปีที่แล้ว

    By topic sounds (and works in this instance) great!

  • @ИнякинАлександр
    @ИнякинАлександр ปีที่แล้ว +1

    На современных процессорах объекты размером до 8 указателей (32/64 байта) можно смело передавать по значению. Без глубокого копирования указателей на кучу, естественно.

  • @xbz24
    @xbz24 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

    very deep video about basics , thx

  • @YoungAdventures
    @YoungAdventures ปีที่แล้ว

    I love this video format!

  • @marcio603
    @marcio603 ปีที่แล้ว

    I agree that dividing the videos will make them more "digestable" but your content is so good that I wouldn't mind to watch hours of video... I work with C++ nowadays and there some videos that I have watched several times... Thanks for the sharing your amazing knowledge.

  • @Micah20001
    @Micah20001 5 หลายเดือนก่อน

    nice video. Anyway I watched a lot of your videos and one think that i will remember for sure is "kind of", "kind of", "kind of"

  • @guilhermedabolsa927
    @guilhermedabolsa927 ปีที่แล้ว

    Good idea Cherno! Clicked on this vid because it was not 01h and 40min long for example =)

  • @sourashismondal5060
    @sourashismondal5060 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    Hi, can you please make a detailed video of how virtual table works in the context of virtual functions?

  • @ktoztam
    @ktoztam ปีที่แล้ว

    As someone who was actually wondering about this thing in particular I very much aprove the idea of making code reviews as by topic rather than long format they used to be.

  • @markrudford3143
    @markrudford3143 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Well, you only need to use a const if that reference or data type is needed else ware in the code file. If not then go the value type route if it is not used anywhere else but once to declare a value.
    Dynamic vs static values used once or more. Depends..

  • @samuelmartin7319
    @samuelmartin7319 ปีที่แล้ว

    I like the idea of splitting up the code review my topic.

  • @Firepipproductions
    @Firepipproductions ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I would pass a custom struct of two 32 bit ints but not a 64 bit int as const ref. Conceptually you are right about the pointer argument, but especially if you make it const, the compiler figures it out to be the same. The custom struct might be 8 bytes now, but could be expanded. It's also just more consistent to have built in types by value and custom stuff const ref. If you use that pattern, passing a custom small type by value will look jarring.
    Also, as you mentioned yourself, const ref can take an rvalue. This means it doesn't actually have to treat the value as a pointer. Does 2 have a memory location? Not until the compiler decides what to do with it. In fact, const ref tells the compiler to do what is most optimal actually. It might just in place the argument as value wherever it is used for instance.

  • @Raspredval1337
    @Raspredval1337 ปีที่แล้ว

    So, if we can efficiently pass stuff by value that is

  • @artie5913
    @artie5913 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    4:10 what if someone adds something big(like a bunch of strings) later in this CustomType? I don't think you want to fix every pass by value after this

  • @cubevlmu385
    @cubevlmu385 ปีที่แล้ว

    Fantastic topic, helps a lot about programming futures. Nice video

  • @iandy_hd3743
    @iandy_hd3743 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    finally a c++ video :)

  • @JohnWasinger
    @JohnWasinger ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I listen to your videos as I drive. I like that the signal to noise from your talks is quite high. I’m not talking about static here. I feel like I’ve learned a lot from just listening to you.
    Some CppCon presentations are very useless to just listen to.

  • @antonpieper
    @antonpieper ปีที่แล้ว

    Good idea to split the review up👍

  • @entusiast2000
    @entusiast2000 ปีที่แล้ว

    AFAIR, x64 compilers like to use __fastcall-based calling convention. In this case **maybe** there's no difference in **memory** used for the value/address transfer (if the value's trivial, less than a register width etc etc..).

  • @mikefochtman7164
    @mikefochtman7164 ปีที่แล้ว

    Regarding monolithic code reviews vs snippets about specific coding issues, I vote for the latter. Bits of info about specific topics seems better (IMHO).

  • @VadimHarenco
    @VadimHarenco ปีที่แล้ว

    Love these series!

  • @vincentpieterse1694
    @vincentpieterse1694 ปีที่แล้ว

    Hi Cherno. Love your work! Could you please do a c++ video on implementing a finite state machine?

  • @mikefochtman7164
    @mikefochtman7164 ปีที่แล้ว

    I think the 'const' is a key part. If the function doesn't need to modify it, then passing by value is fine. (and if the function is const-casting the const away to modify the value, well take that programmer out back and have a talk with them about why they made a function interface that lies)
    If the function had to modify, then a reference/pointer would be necessary. And if you can pass by value, there should be a bit of performance since each time the function accesses it, it doesn't have to dereference the ptr type over and over again. But that would depend just how often it accesses the parameter.

  • @redafakih12
    @redafakih12 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    new idea is great!

  • @malckhazarsteamcat9817
    @malckhazarsteamcat9817 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    Oh, my dear Cherno.
    1. Roughly at 1:20 you said that const reference is converted to ptr. Actually, not just a "ptr *", but "ptr * const".
    2. Passing argument to a function depends on ABI. If your ABI declares that all arguments must be passed via stack - then yes, small types converted to pointer will take more memory.
    In old ABIs agruments was always passed via stack (see Intel x86 ABI as an example).
    In modern ABIs arguments mostly are passed via registers which always have same size. Only data with sizes higher than register size always passes via stack.
    The main difference here is number of accesses to a memory holding the value and it will be "long" if variable located in different memory page, which will have to be kept in RAM.
    3. At ~4:59 you saying that "type is not trivially copyable" is an issue of passing by value. This is not the sole reason. If your type is trivially copyable, but is a big sized (too many members/fields) - this is also an issue for passing by value, because you'll eat all the stack.

    • @Raspredval1337
      @Raspredval1337 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      clearly breaking abi is not an issue, if you're still in development, just recompile the binaries

    • @reductor_
      @reductor_ ปีที่แล้ว

      With (2) if your passing by reference then the reference needs to point to a place in memory, if this is something that was previously just a local variable this is going to force it onto the stack just so that it can be passed as a reference to the called function. ABIs difffer a fair bit it's not just size that impacts things but also if the type is trivial, if the ABI splits structs (like System V), then you have some which don't have many registers for arguments like MS ABI
      Also 32-bit x86 is pretty much dead these days for any game you ship and not worth worrying about, everything targets 64-bit now.

    • @malckhazarsteamcat9817
      @malckhazarsteamcat9817 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@Raspredval1337 You can break ABI only if you write the call by hands in Assembly language. ABI is the convention which is followed by compiler, not the developer.

    • @anon_y_mousse
      @anon_y_mousse ปีที่แล้ว

      @@malckhazarsteamcat9817 You mean the platform. The compiler just targets the platform, so if the convention used is wrong it's because the compiler targeted the platform incorrectly.

    • @malckhazarsteamcat9817
      @malckhazarsteamcat9817 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@anon_y_mousse No, you mistook.
      ABI (or Application Binary Interface) is a convention declaring the order how calls should be made in Assembly. It is included in that you call a "platform", but, technically, it does not restrict you to use other orders of calls inside your code. The problem will arise only after you violate ABI used in compilation of other binary parts of your app - libraries, system calls, etc.
      Inside your code no one can restrict you from writing the call to your function in Assembly.

  • @harleensingh2531
    @harleensingh2531 ปีที่แล้ว

    I think dividing code review based on topics would be great!

  • @ciCCapROSTi
    @ciCCapROSTi 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

    I wanna add, if you are consistent with your pointers, a raw pointer can express a non-owning, nullable reference. So it's a great way to have something point to someone without copying it, as long as you can be sure the object stays alive, like it's allocated in main or the encompassing object or something. Otherwise yeah, weak_ptr, but shared is dumb.

  • @vmarcelo49
    @vmarcelo49 ปีที่แล้ว

    I liked this format, short videos are better to be referred later too

  • @orangasli2943
    @orangasli2943 ปีที่แล้ว

    For anybody confused..
    for 64-bit application..
    one memory address can store up to 64-bits of information or data..
    or specifically 2⁶⁴-1..which is an unsigned long..
    If you have a class that contains x,y,z values i.e a `3dVector` class..
    this data requires 4*3*8=96bits..
    So this requires two addresses to store the information..
    whereas if you have a pointer variable..
    it will only require it to store the information in one address instead of two..
    so the process is faster ..
    And so does the game

  • @TheBestNameEverMade
    @TheBestNameEverMade ปีที่แล้ว

    So an aspect that was forgotten here was the speed of the compiler. In large project or large engines it's very important to forward declare things. So if it's a large file that gets pulled to include a variable in an it's not the hotpath seriously consider using a reference so the type can be forwarded declared instead... of course if you are not working with code that is likely to get very big don't worry o much.
    However c++ compilers can get very slow very quickly if everything is being included in headers which will mean less time for the dev to spend optimizing code that matters.

  • @aurinator
    @aurinator ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Honestly surprised this isn't handled by the compiler.

  • @LogicEu
    @LogicEu ปีที่แล้ว

    Very real and useful advice going on here

  • @arsnakehert
    @arsnakehert ปีที่แล้ว

    Oh no, watching The Cherno's videos gets me excited about copying memory and pointers and whatnot in C++, I don't want to dive into this rabbit hole again *starts editing makefile* oooooooh nooooooooooo what have you dooooooooooone Chernoooooooooooo

  • @VictorOrdu
    @VictorOrdu ปีที่แล้ว

    I agree. Good idea.

  • @chases4951
    @chases4951 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Have you ever seen a case where passing by reference was better due to the reduced set of memory pages being used? I could imagine a case where it would help with TLB hits in the CPU?

  • @simonfarre4907
    @simonfarre4907 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I've seen code passing things like string view by const string_view&. Most views, should be passed by value as they often consists of a pointer and length - this usually fits in a wide 128 bit register. This gives the compiler a possibility to optimize. As soon as you use references, you are essentially aliasing data, which hinders some optimizations.
    And yes, when your type has raw pointers to data you want to shallow copy - because if they hold raw pointers, they should be non-owning views. Someone else owns the data.
    If not, use shared ptr, and in that case, DON'T create a constructor. You want to eliminate ALL custom constructors always - it should be very rarely when you write custom constructors.

  • @YeloFelo
    @YeloFelo ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Love this style of broken-up code review, but it would be nice if there was some indication that this is actually a code review, like maybe on the thumbnail

  • @kiferdon7243
    @kiferdon7243 ปีที่แล้ว

    I like your idea to divide videos

  • @TheRealFFS
    @TheRealFFS ปีที่แล้ว

    Agree with others, I think the length and content of this video is much more preferable to your longer videos. Easier to digest etc.

  • @hashcash7340
    @hashcash7340 ปีที่แล้ว

    9:42 that's a good idea everyone will be able to watch those small videos and learn something new, like i did in this video ;)

  • @art0nsec
    @art0nsec ปีที่แล้ว

    I prefer to watch the code review split into smaller topics. Makes it easier to process and I search it, should I ever want to rewatch it.

  • @dXXPacmanXXb
    @dXXPacmanXXb ปีที่แล้ว +3

    9:43 yes! this is a fantastic idea. I only clicked on this because the title was interesting. I never click on code review videos

  • @dnd3347
    @dnd3347 ปีที่แล้ว

    Wow! Finally my decade long question has been answered :-)

  • @davedobson9801
    @davedobson9801 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    The only thing I'll say in defense of the const reference approach is that occasionally I create a method, forget to use a reference on the parameter which makes a copy, then try to modify the parameter inside the method, which does appear to work, but find upon return that the parameter is not modified. That's why I prefer to use const reference instead of value. It makes it more clear for me and for others that the parameter is not intended to be modified and you have to work harder in the code to actually make it happen. Team programming sometimes requires that you write code slightly less optimally in favor of clarity. So in other words, never pass by value, pass by reference, and use const when the value is not to be modified.

    • @TjSBMD1810
      @TjSBMD1810 ปีที่แล้ว

      Exactly this is, how i also got "teached" how to handle this. This video actually surprised me saying const ref arguments are bad ^^

    • @sourestcake
      @sourestcake ปีที่แล้ว

      But wouldn't just const work in this case without the reference?

  • @DummyFace123
    @DummyFace123 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Beyond this, its just unintuitive behavior to ref a constant. Reffing a constant sort of mimics a static readonly. And if you're seeking to save memory in this way then a static readonly is the way to go. If we look into why string.Empty is a static readonly rather than a constant, it has to do with using it from unmanaged code not marking it as a literal.
    _"The Empty constant holds the empty string value. We need to call the String constructor so that the compiler doesn't mark this as a literal.
    Marking this as a literal would mean that it doesn't show up as a field which we can access from native."_

  • @chikwendumcdonald1581
    @chikwendumcdonald1581 ปีที่แล้ว

    Yes, it's a good idea to split the video into topics.

  • @GreenClover0
    @GreenClover0 ปีที่แล้ว

    Yeah, that sounds like a good idea ^^

  • @ozguragcakaya9017
    @ozguragcakaya9017 ปีที่แล้ว

    Go for it man!

  • @DeGuerre
    @DeGuerre ปีที่แล้ว

    This is probably for the Big Video(tm), but passing these small POD types by const reference can have big performance implications beyond the call site. A CPU register does not have an address. Taking the address of a variable means that, for at least some of its lifetime, that variable cannot be stored in a register, since the function you called might want to retain the reference somehow.
    C++ has a now-deprecated keyword, "register", which makes it an error to take the address of some variable. That was useful behaviour.
    ADVANCED KNOWLEDGE: Even for a heavyweight object, you may still want to pass it by value under some circumstances, most notably if the callee is going to take a copy. This moves the copy to the caller (which may result in the copy being avoided altogether if the value is an lvalue); the callee can use move semantics rather than copy semantics.

  • @sanyi_derda
    @sanyi_derda ปีที่แล้ว

    9:45 like the new idea :)

  • @gerooq
    @gerooq ปีที่แล้ว

    yeah shorter more focused videos sounds like a good idea, but i gotta say i really do like this format i end up learning alot regardless

    • @gerooq
      @gerooq ปีที่แล้ว

      and theres room for jokes and other tidbits which honestly makes me wanna watch your videos more, cuz i mean think abuot it there are plenty of c++ videos on youtube, people watch yours because of your personality, and that doesnt just include the way you teach but also the videos are just entertaining too