Ordinary C ++ programmers VS literary C ++ programmers

I saw a C ++ post on the BBS. Is the C ++ child going astray ?, It reminds me of ordinary youth and literary youth. Bytes
Bytes
Look at this typical NB program and find the number of bits.

Common C ++ programmers

Namespace traditional
 
{
 
Int bits_of (int remain)
 
{
 
If (remain)
 
Return 1 + bits_of (remain> 1 );
 
Return 0;
 
}
 
 
Int bits_of (void)
 
{
 
Return bits_of (~ (Int) 0 );
 
}
 
}
 
C ++ programmers

Namespace modern
 
{
 
Template <int, typename THEN, typename ELSE>
 
Struct IF {typedefTHEN type ;};
 
 
Template <typename THEN, typename ELSE>
 
Struct IF <0, THEN, ELSE> {typedef ELSE type ;};
 
 
Template <typename T, t x>
 
Struct zero
 
{
 
Static const Tvalue = X;
 
};
 
 
Template <typename T, t x>
 
Struct bits_of
 
{
 
Typedef typenameIF <X, bits_of <T, (X> 1)>, zero <T, 0 >>:: type;
 
Static const Tvalue = type: value + !! X;
 
};
 
}
Unit test of Wen Qing,

Typedef int a0 [bits_of <int, 0 >:: value = 0? 1:-1];
Typedef int a1 [bits_of <int, 1 >:: value = 1? 1:-1];
Typedef int a2 [bits_of <int, 2 >:: value = 2? 1:-1];
Typedef int a3 [bits_of <int, 3 >:: value = 2? 1:-1];
Typedef int a4 [bits_of <int, 4 >:: value = 3? 1:-1];
Typedef int a7 [bits_of <int, 7 >:: value = 3? 1:-1];
Typedef int a8 [bits_of <int, 8 >:: value = 4? 1:-1];
Typedef int a15 [bits_of <int, 15 >:: value = 4? 1:-1];
Typedef int a16 [bits_of <int, 16 >:: value = 5? 1:-1];
Class C ++ programmers

Namespace third_party
 
{
 
// Are you sure you can understand? Zookeeper
 
}

From Viper's column