Sick of cppreference showing up in search
I find that the documentation provided by cplusplus is better than cppreference.
I always find myself clicking cppreference on accident. I found a solution to this annoying problem.
https://webapps.stackexchange.com/a/123675/259610
Not only can I block cppreference now; I can also block sites that refuse to let me access content because of my ad blocker or because I do not have a subscription.
With how helpful this is, I figured I'd share.
I always find myself clicking cppreference on accident. I found a solution to this annoying problem.
https://webapps.stackexchange.com/a/123675/259610
Not only can I block cppreference now; I can also block sites that refuse to let me access content because of my ad blocker or because I do not have a subscription.
With how helpful this is, I figured I'd share.
Last edited on
nice one.
If you don't have a subscription, you can still see the articles on a lot of sites by looking at the source (a bit yucky but the plaintext area is the meat of the article) or spamming escape (preventing the blockout before it hides the text) or using alternate browser (you can write a dumb html only browser or something old like lynx which cant process the blocker). But more tricks are better, esp with low quality sites wanting money for garbage.
If you don't have a subscription, you can still see the articles on a lot of sites by looking at the source (a bit yucky but the plaintext area is the meat of the article) or spamming escape (preventing the blockout before it hides the text) or using alternate browser (you can write a dumb html only browser or something old like lynx which cant process the blocker). But more tricks are better, esp with low quality sites wanting money for garbage.
Last edited on
| With how helpful this is, I figured I'd share. |
| I find that the documentation provided by cplusplus is better than cppreference. |
Last edited on
I advise you not to block cppreference. It is a great source when you need detailed, up-to-date information. Neither of these sites should be considered authoritative, but the reference in this site has largely not been updated since C++11.
In cplusplus.com's reference's defense, some of its content is less verbose and more easily digestible.
But for which pages in particular do you think cplusplus.com provides better documentation, and why? Just curious.
In cplusplus.com's reference's defense, some of its content is less verbose and more easily digestible.
But for which pages in particular do you think cplusplus.com provides better documentation, and why? Just curious.
Last edited on
It's mostly that cplusplus has a better design and examples. Looking at cppreference's design is more work for my eyes. The font in particular.
Last edited on
For C++11/14, I'd agree with @johnglen244 re the better design. The issue is that cplusplus doesn't cover C++17/20.
Cplusplus.com's coverage of C++14 is not complete though. For example, it contains no information about std::make_unique and there is no mention about an std::equal taking four iterators.
cppreference.com is a wiki. If you think there's a way to improve the documentation on that site without sacrificing its accuracy, you're free to request a change (or change it yourself for some pages).
However, if a big part of your issue is with the font, then… why not change it? There are many browser extensions that allow you to add arbitrary CSS to sites. Pick one, add selectors for the parts of the page whose text you dislike, and choose a font-family that you like. Or you can get an extension that disables custom fonts for a page.
-Albatross
However, if a big part of your issue is with the font, then… why not change it? There are many browser extensions that allow you to add arbitrary CSS to sites. Pick one, add selectors for the parts of the page whose text you dislike, and choose a font-family that you like. Or you can get an extension that disables custom fonts for a page.
-Albatross
I would also recommend not to block cppreference. For a quick look cplusplus (while not up to date) might appear easier but cppreference offers a deeper insight and also has examples.
So cppreference is certainly worthwhile...
So cppreference is certainly worthwhile...
At times I find the formatting of cppreference a bit hard to read, until I tell my browser to zoom in and make the page appear larger.
Overall I prefer the terse and compact amount of information packed into a cppreference page. Too often I compare the same pre-C++17 feature between CPlusPlus & cppreference, and cppreference has more detailed info on one page. CPlusPlus either doesn't have as much detailed info, or it is spread across multiple pages.
Overall I prefer the terse and compact amount of information packed into a cppreference page. Too often I compare the same pre-C++17 feature between CPlusPlus & cppreference, and cppreference has more detailed info on one page. CPlusPlus either doesn't have as much detailed info, or it is spread across multiple pages.
Ok, so cppreference is good. I think I let the font convince me otherwise sometime in the past.
How come neither puts the method signatures for the methods on the main page of a class!? Coming from Oracle's docs, I find this annoying.
How come neither puts the method signatures for the methods on the main page of a class!? Coming from Oracle's docs, I find this annoying.
Last edited on
| How come neither puts the method signatures for the methods on the main page of a class |
https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/header/vector#Synopsis
http://eel.is/c++draft/vector
This site provides a different interface to cppreference:
https://devdocs.io/cpp/
Last edited on
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.