Originally posted by carewolf
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
C++17 Is Complete, Work On C++20 Is Getting Underway
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by coder View PostMy complaints are with the frequency of new standards and the amount of fluffy, sugary changes.
Originally posted by coder View PostEven in transitioning some of our legacy code to C++11, we've had issues where library authors default to C++11 standard library constructs when available, otherwise falling back on Boost. If you don't think about it too hard, this sounds like a good idea. But it introduced hard-to-find bugs when not all code (it's a large codebase, with many libraries) was built in C++11 mode.
Originally posted by coder View PostStandards changes have a real cost, to many of us living in the real world. At some point, it could become hard to justify using C++ for new projects. This is how languages die.
Originally posted by coder View PostWhat's wrong with using open source & vendor-provided libraries?
Originally posted by coder View PostThey're much more responsive to changes in technologies and user needs.
Originally posted by coder View Postrestrict is necessary to achieve good performance in code with arrays.
Originally posted by coder View PostC++'s niche is performance-oriented, so restrict is a necessary consequence of offering pointers. The fact that the standard excludes it doesn't keep people from using it, but its use in library code is diminished, where it could benefit many users with little risk.
Originally posted by coder View PostA lot of code is still written in C. C compatibility has been a hallmark of C++ since its inception. I think the standard committee walks away from this, at their peril.Last edited by pal666; 27 March 2017, 03:28 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by coder View PostBut I firmly reject the idea that it's a high virtue to write code with no external library dependencies. Yes, you want to keep the number of dependencies low, but it's not worth bloating up the standard just so you can feel "clean".
Originally posted by coder View PostBoost proves that high-quality open source libraries are more than adequate at meeting user needs. All the standard really needs to do is make sure the library authors are unimpeded.
Comment
-
Originally posted by garegin View PostI think the worse thing about C/C++ is the security. You can't really fix that by "mastering the language".
Originally posted by garegin View PostThe profuctivity gap has been bridged to a great degree.
If MS was writing Office from the start, you bet your ass they would be using .NET and not unmanaged C++.
Comment
-
Originally posted by coder View PostAgain, the problem with the frequent standards updates that add lots of new features is that they tempt library authors into using them,
Originally posted by coder View Postleaving everyone who's not on the bleeding edge in the dust.
Originally posted by coder View PostWe almost had to abort our C++11 transition
Originally posted by coder View Postwe encountered the incompatible template instantiation problems I mentioned above!
Originally posted by coder View PostBy alienating a set of its users, the C++ standards committee risks doing more harm than good to the user community, as a whole.
Comment
-
Originally posted by garegin View PostIf MS was writing Office from the start, you bet your ass they would be using .NET and not unmanaged C++.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by carewolf View PostYou are right except about using boost. Boost is experimental and unstable. It is not something you should ever rely on in published code.
That said, there are more stable & less stable parts of Boost. It's a collection of libraries, and not all are vetted, tested, documented, or maintained to the same degree.
Comment
-
Originally posted by pal666 View Postpeople much smarter than you are making sure that there will be no incompatibilities introduced
It seems you've failed to comprehend the key points I've outlined over the course of several posts. You could probably save time replying to posts, if you'd spend a bit more time reading them. Of course, that presumes virtuous motives. Perhaps you just find it more enjoyable to write insulting, provocative, and invective-laden replies.
Concerning restrict:
Originally posted by pal666 View Postit is not necessary. it is one of the ways to tell compiler pointers will not alias, but there are others
...
standard will need better solution. for example http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg...2014/n4150.pdf
If I don't respond to further replies of yours, please don't believe it's out of agreement or respect.Last edited by coder; 28 March 2017, 04:01 AM.
- Likes 1
Comment
Comment