Static, nonmember or static nonmember function?

Question

Every time I have some functionality which is in the direction of \"utility\", I end up wondering which option is the best. For instance, printing message structs (own or extern

Answer 1

The difference between options 2 and 3 is that in the second case, the function will be internal to the translation unit. If the function is only defined in the cpp this should be the option (which is roughly equivalent to an unnamed namespace --which is a fourth option to consider, again roughly equivalent to 3).

If the function is to be used by different translation units then you should go with option 2. The function will be compiled once (unless you mark it as inline and provide the definition in the header), while with option 3 the compiler will create it's an internal copy in each translation unit.

As of option 1, I would avoid it. In Java or C# you are forced to use classes everywhere, and you end up with utility classes when operations do not nicely map to the object paradigm. In C++ on the other hand, you can provide those operations as free standing functions, and there is no need to add the extra layer. If you opt for the utility class, don't forget to disable the creation of the objects.

Whether the functions are at class or namespace level will affect the lookup, and that will impact on user code. Static member functions need to be qualified with the class name always, unless you are inside the class scope, while there are different ways of bringing namespace functions into scope. As an illustrative example, consider a bunch of math helper functions, and calling code:

double do_maths( double x ) {
   using namespace math;
   return my_sqrt( x ) * cube_root(x);
}
// alternatively with an utility class:
double do_maths( double x ) {
   return math::my_sqrt(x) * math::cube_root(x);
}

Which one you find easier to read is a different story, but I prefer the former: within the function I can select the namespace and then just focus on the operations and ignore lookup issues.