Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

C++17 Is Complete, Work On C++20 Is Getting Underway

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #41
    Originally posted by carewolf View Post
    Actually the biggest problem with old char is this: Is it signed or unsigned?
    only if you never tried to output its value to ostream

    Comment


    • #42
      Originally posted by coder View Post
      My complaints are with the frequency of new standards and the amount of fluffy, sugary changes.
      i can agree with you here. frequency of new standards and amount of fluffy, sugary changes is too low
      Originally posted by coder View Post
      Even 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.
      1) build all you code in c++11 mode. in c++14, actually. 2) if you can't then don't use newer libraries and don't complain. newer libraries are for kids with legs. you are living in the past - you don't have newer libraries. newer libraries are for newer compilers. it is crazy to demand that everyone should make new libraries for your old compilers, try to look into mirror sometimes.
      Originally posted by coder View Post
      Standards 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.
      you've got it backwards. outside of your fantasy world languages die when they stop evolving
      Originally posted by coder View Post
      What's wrong with using open source & vendor-provided libraries?
      they are not standard - you can't depend on them. and usually they are shitty. and they have zero benefits compared to standard.
      Originally posted by coder View Post
      They're much more responsive to changes in technologies and user needs.
      they still exist. if you need them - use them. but shouldn't "more responsive" part frighten you lol?
      Originally posted by coder View Post
      restrict is necessary to achieve good performance in code with arrays.
      it is not necessary. it is one of the ways to tell compiler pointers will not alias, but there are others
      Originally posted by coder View Post
      C++'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.
      you are not competent enough to evaluate risk. restrict is supported by all compilers anyway, standard will need better solution. for example http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg...2014/n4150.pdf
      Originally posted by coder View Post
      A 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.
      you've got it backwards. it is c committee walked away from c++
      Last edited by pal666; 27 March 2017, 03:28 PM.

      Comment


      • #43
        Originally posted by coder View Post
        But 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".
        well, in you sandbox you could make any standards you like
        Originally posted by coder View Post
        Boost 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.
        that is why boost authors are busy moving it to standard, lol

        Comment


        • #44
          Originally posted by garegin View Post
          I think the worse thing about C/C++ is the security. You can't really fix that by "mastering the language".
          maybe you can't, but other people can. without c/ part that is.
          Originally posted by garegin View Post
          The 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++.
          lol, you are left in last decade. first hit in google "c++ renaissance" is from ms site.

          Comment


          • #45
            Originally posted by coder View Post
            Again, the problem with the frequent standards updates that add lots of new features is that they tempt library authors into using them,
            that means those new features are really good. in other words, new standard is great success. you could cry in the corner
            Originally posted by coder View Post
            leaving everyone who's not on the bleeding edge in the dust.
            not in the dust, ffs. with previous library release. or without library. nobody is obliged to provide library for you. unless it is standard library lol. so you should be asking for more standard libraries
            Originally posted by coder View Post
            We almost had to abort our C++11 transition
            so you should hire someone competent
            Originally posted by coder View Post
            we encountered the incompatible template instantiation problems I mentioned above!
            you didn't mention anything like that
            Originally posted by coder View Post
            By alienating a set of its users, the C++ standards committee risks doing more harm than good to the user community, as a whole.
            if those users are unable to upgrade to c++11, surely they have zero chances of leaving c++ lol

            Comment


            • #46
              Originally posted by carewolf View Post
              Boost is experimental and unstable.
              true
              Originally posted by carewolf View Post
              It is not something you should ever rely on in published code.
              false. alternative (to do it manually) is much worse

              Comment


              • #47
                Originally posted by garegin View Post

                Emm. I read the article and it's talking about use of confusing aliases.
                More than “confusing” aliases, they mean that text-based shells have access to functionality that PowerShell does not.

                Comment


                • #48
                  Originally posted by garegin View Post
                  If MS was writing Office from the start, you bet your ass they would be using .NET and not unmanaged C++.

                  I would hope not. Remember why Windows Vista was so badly delayed? Because they wanted to write parts of it in Dotnet, and then discovered, well down the track, how bad an idea that was...

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    Originally posted by carewolf View Post
                    You are right except about using boost. Boost is experimental and unstable. It is not something you should ever rely on in published code.
                    Wow. Well, I've been using it in teams developing & supporting reliable, commercial products for over a decade. So, I pretty much couldn't disagree with you more.

                    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


                    • #50
                      Originally posted by pal666 View Post
                      people much smarter than you are making sure that there will be no incompatibilities introduced
                      Sorry bud, you're not smart enough to be that arrogant.

                      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 Post
                      it 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
                      I will accept any solution that gives me equivalent functionality. Didn't think I'd have to spell that out, but there it is. I did see that proposal, in fact, hoping it would be accepted into C++17.

                      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.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X