There is one common pattern which is required in many use cases when working and representing ASTs - having a `parent` node, or having access to parents and children. This complicates ownership implementation.
Additonally, is essential to provide an API to transform trees or even construct new ones using immutable ASTs like implemented in many compilers eg .NET Roslin or typescript TSC.
Sometimes, you have to make a complex feature or fix. You can first make a prototype of the code or proof of concept that barely works. Then you can see the gap that remains to make the change production ready and the implications of your change. That involves fixing regressions in the test suite caused by your changes.
Exceptions are a very useful tool. In your example, the main program logic is buried in error handling which makes it more difficult to read the code and the code becomes more complex, leading to more bugs. In many cases, it's preferable to have a single error handler centralized in one place, out of line of the main logic. This makes the code more readable, reduces complexity and duplication.
I know very well what it means to care about a memory allocation cost or an atomic operation in a fast path. In some applications though, that is not the dominating performance factor, instead the algorithm dominates. For example, with C++ an manual memory management our application could take something like 58 minutes to run while in Java it would take 60 minutes. The impact of the low level management is entirely insignificant for performance in the big picture in these cases.
The performance comes from the big O complexity. Memory management is a constant factor in the algorithm.
When I mention constructors I am talking about initializer lists and all the subtleties and special cases around them.
Basically most of the complexity I mention comes from memory management. It's just a lot of details to know about and keep in your head. It's the price to pay for the flexibility and power.
In Java you need to understand references and object lifecycles or you get memory leaks and slow applications.
Actually, I work on a performance sensitive application and it's written in Java and it's a good choice for it, since the performance comes from algorithmic complexity, mostly from asymptotic complexity. A C++ rewrite wouldn't significantly impact the performance of the application.
I find today's C++ extremely challenging to pick up speed for someone coming from let's say, Java. Smart pointers, pointer/references, rvalue reference, copy/move semantics, (perfect) forwarding, constructors, and how all that interacts with templates. It's just so unwieldy complex. It takes me hours to write something that would take less than a minute in Java even though I have experience with plain C. The worst thing is that after it finally compiles I feel I can't be sure if I've followed all the rules and best practices correctly or if it's going to blow up spectacularly and potentially unsafely at runtime. The fact that a book like "Effective Modern C++" is needed with all those traps and foot guns to be aware of is ludicrous.
And don't get me wrong - I think C++ is the most powerful language out there on the right hands - it just feels to require a lifetime of learning to became productive on it.
If a static analyzer is sound, which is something that can be mathematically proven (formal method), will find ALL existing issues plus some false positives if it's not complete (which is almost always the case).
Fuel taxes don't address the same issue. Availability of chargers is a blocker for EV adoption. The measure directly helps with that problem, while fuel taxes is a more indirect push. In other words, even if you are heavily pushed by fuel taxes, if you have a blocking barrier with charging infrastructure, buying an EV won't be feasible to begin with.
Because most problems like merging and resolving correctly, or rebasing or squashing if needed don't get resolved by cloning a new repo. If you avoid learning the tool and you just clone a new repo when you have a problem you won't be able to do any non-trivial task in git.
I find this as being indirect and dancing around the issue. When I do e.g. a code review and I see a glaring defect on it - I point it out very clearly and directly to make sure there is no misunderstanding - I say, XYZ is incorrect. Because of blah-blah. No feelings attached to it, just a fact.
You say "be a programmer" to make it sound demeaning. I am not a "programmer" I am a software engineer, which is a very different way to put it. Studying CS to be a software eng is definitely not over kill.
"Principles of Program Analysis" covers the subject very well. It's not an easy or beginner book because it's very formal, but very complete and with plenty of examples.
The problem is what I mentioned at the end of my other comment -- complex programs will get inputs from web APIs, console, database, so it's not possible to have complete runtime coverage for all paths in the interpreter on the general case.
Additonally, is essential to provide an API to transform trees or even construct new ones using immutable ASTs like implemented in many compilers eg .NET Roslin or typescript TSC.