www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - OT: fixing c++ with epochs

reply victoroak <anyone any.com> writes:
https://vittorioromeo.info/index/blog/fixing_cpp_with_epochs.html

I follow this forum for some time and I saw some discussions 
about breaking changes and I thought this would be an interesting 
read.

I think D is too afraid of breaking changes so maybe this could 
be a way to do it safely.
Aug 08
next sibling parent reply Dukc <ajieskola gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 8 August 2019 at 11:55:16 UTC, victoroak wrote:
 https://vittorioromeo.info/index/blog/fixing_cpp_with_epochs.html

 I follow this forum for some time and I saw some discussions 
 about breaking changes and I thought this would be an 
 interesting read.

 I think D is too afraid of breaking changes so maybe this could 
 be a way to do it safely.
If I understood correctly, the idea is that any file can select what version of the language they use? Sounds good IMO, I have also thought that it would be cool if I could define -preview and -revert switches at module level. For library features, something like what Martin Odersky[1] described at DConf2018 might be a good base for a DIP. The problem is defining how this feature would work with templates that are defined in different contexts, without runtime slowdown. We cannot simply reinstantiate templates for each version of the language/library, as that would lead to horrible bloat. And another problem, who would be determined and skilled enough to push through a DIP for such a feature? It won't be the easiest one. 1: https://dconf.org/2018/talks/odersky.html
Aug 08
parent Dukc <ajieskola gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 8 August 2019 at 13:37:34 UTC, Dukc wrote:
 For library features, something like what Martin Odersky[1] 
 described at DConf2018 might be a good base for a DIP.

 The problem is defining how this feature would work with 
 templates that are defined in different contexts, without 
 runtime slowdown. We cannot simply reinstantiate templates for 
 each version of the language/library, as that would lead to 
 horrible bloat.

 And another problem, who would be determined and skilled enough 
 to push through a DIP for such a feature? It won't be the 
 easiest one.

 1: https://dconf.org/2018/talks/odersky.html
Forgot to add: If despite the challeges such feature will be made one day, the potential benefit would be great indeed. For one, goodbye autodecoding!
Aug 08
prev sibling next sibling parent SashaGreat <s g.com> writes:
On Thursday, 8 August 2019 at 11:55:16 UTC, victoroak wrote:
 https://vittorioromeo.info/index/blog/fixing_cpp_with_epochs.html

 I follow this forum for some time and I saw some discussions 
 about breaking changes and I thought this would be an 
 interesting read.

 I think D is too afraid of breaking changes so maybe this could 
 be a way to do it safely.
I talked about exactly this in another thread: https://forum.dlang.org/post/ctvstjuzjayimyxwsugg forum.dlang.org If I'm not mistaken this was written after Rust decide for 2 ~ 3 years review of the language, instead of carrying bad design for the rest of their lives. I think if Rust succeeded with their plan, C++ will move in this way pretty fast. Sasha.
Aug 08
prev sibling next sibling parent reply 12345swordy <alexanderheistermann gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 8 August 2019 at 11:55:16 UTC, victoroak wrote:
 https://vittorioromeo.info/index/blog/fixing_cpp_with_epochs.html

 I follow this forum for some time and I saw some discussions 
 about breaking changes and I thought this would be an 
 interesting read.

 I think D is too afraid of breaking changes so maybe this could 
 be a way to do it safely.
"Make explicit the default, and introduce an implicit keyword" Yes dear god, yes! This is what d needs to do when introducing implicit conversions. Alex
Aug 08
parent reply Ethan <gooberman gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 8 August 2019 at 15:15:49 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
 "Make explicit the default, and introduce an implicit keyword"
 Yes dear god, yes! This is what d needs to do when introducing 
 implicit conversions.

 Alex
Actually, I'll add that to my list of "Things we should break and introduce a new major version with" alongside "const by default" and "pure by default".
Aug 08
parent victoroak <anyone any.com> writes:
On Thursday, 8 August 2019 at 20:31:46 UTC, Ethan wrote:
 On Thursday, 8 August 2019 at 15:15:49 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
 "Make explicit the default, and introduce an implicit keyword"
 Yes dear god, yes! This is what d needs to do when introducing 
 implicit conversions.

 Alex
Actually, I'll add that to my list of "Things we should break and introduce a new major version with" alongside "const by default" and "pure by default".
I think safe by default would be good too. It would help with attribute bloat.
Aug 08
prev sibling parent XavierAP <n3minis-git yahoo.es> writes:
On Thursday, 8 August 2019 at 11:55:16 UTC, victoroak wrote:
 https://vittorioromeo.info/index/blog/fixing_cpp_with_epochs.html

 I follow this forum for some time and I saw some discussions 
 about breaking changes and I thought this would be an 
 interesting read.

 I think D is too afraid of breaking changes so maybe this could 
 be a way to do it safely.
Interesting!
Aug 08