This is a post I wrote several years ago and it's been languishing in my drafts folder ever since. I'm not working on this particular codebase any more. That said, the problems caused by using Java-like getter and setter functions as the sole interface to the object in the context described in the post have a bigger impact these days as they will also affect move construction and move assignment. While I'm not opposed to using getter and setter functions in C++ in general, I am opposed to using them as the only member access method and especially in this particular context where they had to be used to initialise class members that were complex objects themselves.
We all love the odd debugging story, so I finally sat down and wrote up how I debugged a configuration issue that got in the way of the iOS mail app's ability to retrieve email while I was on the go.
Turns out I made some unnecessary "work" for myself when I tried to add support for command history to inf-mongo. As Mickey over at Mastering Emacs points out in a blog post, comint mode already comes with M-n and M-p mapped to comint-next-input and comint-previous-input. And of course they work in inf-mongo right out of the box. I still prefer using M-up and M-down, plus I learned a bit about sparse key maps and general interaction with comint-mode. So from that perspective, no time was wasted although it wasn't strictly necessary to put in the work.
I'm spending a lot of time in the MongoDB shell at the moment, so of course I went to see if someone had built an Emacs mode to support the MongoDB shell. Google very quickly pointed me at endofunky's inf-mongo mode, which implements a basic shell interaction mode with MongoDB using comint. We have a winner, well, almost. The mode does exactly what it says on the tin, but I wanted a little more, namely being able to scroll through my command history. Other repl modes like Cider have this functionality already, so it couldn't be too hard to implement, could it?
A problem archivists have been bringing up for a while now is that with the majority of content going digital and the pace of change in storage mechanisms and formats, it's becoming harder to preserve content even when it is not what would be considered old by the standards of other historic documents created by humanity.