GCC Finishing Up C++17 Adjustments, Preparing For C++2A

[pal666]

Is it still possible to have a compact language?

yes, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainfuck
what are you waiting for?

[RealNC]

there's always plain old C: a simple, beautiful, powerful language that doesn't stand in your way when you try to shoot yourself in the foot.

On the other hand, it also doesn't stand in your way when don't try to shoot yourself in the foot ;-)

[carewolf]

This isn't 1989 C.

2011 C isn't much better. Still a shell of a language that needs preprocessing hacks to do most metaprogramming.

[carewolf]

On the other hand, it also doesn't stand in your way when don't try to shoot yourself in the foot ;-)

It does. C is always in the way. Even for shooting yourself in the foot C++ is much efficient at really fucking things up.

[ids1024]

only idiots repeat this bullshit and don't understand that everything of value was designed by committee

The original (pre-ANSI) version of C was designed by exactly one person, which seems like a counterexample (this perhaps explains some aspects of C, good and bad).

That said, it is indeed unfair to dismiss anything a committee was involved in. Probably the main issue with C++ is not that, but trying to add modern features while largely maintaining backwards compatibility. There is certainly reason to do that, but it results in many issues.

[timofonic]

C++ is a victim of design by committee. A complicated monster that still lacks in some areas.

They need to deprecate and remove extremely lots of stuff in newer versions and faster fixing C++ areas needing more love. I hate those fixed year standard releases too.

They urgently need to take the Vulkan way.

[mlau]

C isn't beautiful by a long shot tho. Especially when people start using pointers and structures.

C is simple and elegant. Pointers are one of the best features. When you've written lots of assembly they're easy to understand. It's unfortunate that hordes of Java programmers let loose on C give it a bad reputation.

[timofonic]

C++ is a victim of design by comitee. A complicated monster that still lacks in some areas.

I prefer to see it in a very different way.

- C++ standard should not only be a lot more (pro)active at deprecating and removing archaic cruft, but at making and supporting (devs, financially, structure, etc) reliable code upgrading tools to newer standards.

- I also consider fixed year releases should be deprecated, it's part of an archaic thinking. After all they fail all deadlines to complete it as ISO before the year. I consider they should use a Vulkan approach as in release early and release often and accept lots of feedback to make the final versions.

My pointer is still valid.

Fixed FTW!

[pal666]

The original (pre-ANSI) version of C was designed by exactly one person, which seems like a counterexample (this perhaps explains some aspects of C, good and bad).

it's like saying that linux was written by exactly one linus. original version of c is dead.

Probably the main issue with C++ is not that, but trying to add modern features while largely maintaining backwards compatibility. There is certainly reason to do that, but it results in many issues.

that is not main issue, but main strength. just look at graveyard of languages which made wrong choice

[pal666]

They need to deprecate and remove extremely lots of stuff in newer versions

then you need to fix lots of existing software which will be broken by removing lots of stuff from language

and faster fixing C++ areas needing more love. I hate those fixed year standard releases too.

They urgently need to take the Vulkan way.

are you volunteering to help?