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

[carewolf]

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.

It works in end applications, but in frameworks it causes abi breakage and new linux packages all the time when boost updates which unfortunately they do with global shared version numbers.

[danger]

imbecile, rust is patching itself every six weeks

You see, rust is so good, it can patch itself.

[coder]

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:

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.

[coder]

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.

[ldo17]

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...

[ldo17]

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.

[pal666]

Boost is experimental and unstable.

true

It is not something you should ever rely on in published code.

false. alternative (to do it manually) is much worse

[pal666]

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

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

We almost had to abort our C++11 transition

so you should hire someone competent

we encountered the incompatible template instantiation problems I mentioned above!

you didn't mention anything like that

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

[pal666]

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.

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.

[pal666]

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

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