digitalmars.D - [r/cpp] Why I am not happy with C++17
- maik klein (2/2) Mar 08 2016 Not my post but I think it is an interesting discussion.
- Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQ=?= (6/8) Mar 08 2016 There are always these rants about what should and should not be
- krzaq (4/13) Mar 08 2016 C++17 was supposed to be a major release. They decided to turn it
- Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQ=?= (10/12) Mar 08 2016 Well, it is the standard that is delayed. Implementations are on
- Dmitry Olshansky (5/7) Mar 08 2016 This more or less means that we (as in D enthusiasts) have some more
- Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQ=?= (3/5) Mar 08 2016 Yes, but they got in parallelism ISO/IEC 29124:2010 and file
- Minas Mina (4/11) Mar 08 2016 I honestly don't care about those. Boost has them. Modules are
- Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQ=?= (2/4) Mar 08 2016 Yeah, language features matters a lot more than library additions.
- Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQ=?= (4/6) Mar 08 2016 Just found out that Modules weren't supposed to be scheduled for
- Minas Mina (4/11) Mar 08 2016 Is the modules specification finalized though? As far as I know
- Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQ=?= (7/9) Mar 09 2016 I don't think it finalized. BTW, I think some of the Microsoft
- Andrei Alexandrescu (2/10) Mar 08 2016 Again people discuss the GC in D. -- Andrei
- Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQ=?= (9/10) Mar 08 2016 Well, but the non-GC D example someone provided did not look like
- jmh530 (3/4) Mar 08 2016 Are you guys making progress with rcstring and lifetimes?
- Walter Bright (10/12) Mar 08 2016 Back in the olden (Zortech C++) days, lots of people told me that the ne...
- Era Scarecrow (4/9) Mar 08 2016 Didn't MS spout the same 'awesome' OS they were working on that
- Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQ=?= (4/7) Mar 08 2016 Windows NT was known for having a decent kernel. Vapour-ware was
- Walter Bright (3/5) Mar 08 2016 It wasn't Microsoft telling me that their next C++ release would bury Zo...
Not my post but I think it is an interesting discussion. https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/49dgdb/why_i_am_not_happy_with_c17_c_17_outlook_march/
Mar 08 2016
On Tuesday, 8 March 2016 at 14:16:22 UTC, maik klein wrote:Not my post but I think it is an interesting discussion. https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/49dgdb/why_i_am_not_happy_with_c17_c_17_outlook_march/There are always these rants about what should and should not be on a release in the cpp reddit. No big deal there, people want concepts, but it has not been evaluated properly... So what if it comes in C++19? I see some critique of D there as well, but nothing interesting, really.
Mar 08 2016
On Tuesday, 8 March 2016 at 14:31:56 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:On Tuesday, 8 March 2016 at 14:16:22 UTC, maik klein wrote:C++17 was supposed to be a major release. They decided to turn it into major joke instead.Not my post but I think it is an interesting discussion. https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/49dgdb/why_i_am_not_happy_with_c17_c_17_outlook_march/There are always these rants about what should and should not be on a release in the cpp reddit. No big deal there, people want concepts, but it has not been evaluated properly... So what if it comes in C++19? I see some critique of D there as well, but nothing interesting, really.
Mar 08 2016
On Tuesday, 8 March 2016 at 15:33:21 UTC, krzaq wrote:C++17 was supposed to be a major release. They decided to turn it into major joke instead.Well, it is the standard that is delayed. Implementations are on the way. "STL" points out that Microsoft will follow GCC by implementing concepts, but that Ballmer had put the compiler on hold for a few years so they have to play catch up on the compiler internals first. If you have a defacto-standard in the compilers then ISO will follow suit, that's the purpose of standardization. But modules ought to have been in C++11... so it is annoying if they don't get it in C+17.
Mar 08 2016
On 08-Mar-2016 17:16, maik klein wrote:Not my post but I think it is an interesting discussion. https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/49dgdb/why_i_am_not_happy_with_c17_c_17_outlook_march/This more or less means that we (as in D enthusiasts) have some more time to carve up some "market" share. Till C++20 I guess. -- Dmitry Olshansky
Mar 08 2016
On Tuesday, 8 March 2016 at 15:54:46 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:This more or less means that we (as in D enthusiasts) have some more time to carve up some "market" share. Till C++20 I guess.Yes, but they got in parallelism ISO/IEC 29124:2010 and file system support.
Mar 08 2016
On Tuesday, 8 March 2016 at 17:31:58 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:On Tuesday, 8 March 2016 at 15:54:46 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:I honestly don't care about those. Boost has them. Modules are far more important for me.This more or less means that we (as in D enthusiasts) have some more time to carve up some "market" share. Till C++20 I guess.Yes, but they got in parallelism ISO/IEC 29124:2010 and file system support.
Mar 08 2016
On Tuesday, 8 March 2016 at 18:24:54 UTC, Minas Mina wrote:I honestly don't care about those. Boost has them. Modules are far more important for me.Yeah, language features matters a lot more than library additions.
Mar 08 2016
On Tuesday, 8 March 2016 at 18:24:54 UTC, Minas Mina wrote:I honestly don't care about those. Boost has them. Modules are far more important for me.Just found out that Modules weren't supposed to be scheduled for C++17 anyway, but was already meant to be a separate TS. Seems like the C++ standard process will be more continuous than before.
Mar 08 2016
On Tuesday, 8 March 2016 at 22:53:01 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:On Tuesday, 8 March 2016 at 18:24:54 UTC, Minas Mina wrote:Is the modules specification finalized though? As far as I know there were two implementations, clang's and vc++'s.I honestly don't care about those. Boost has them. Modules are far more important for me.Just found out that Modules weren't supposed to be scheduled for C++17 anyway, but was already meant to be a separate TS. Seems like the C++ standard process will be more continuous than before.
Mar 08 2016
On Wednesday, 9 March 2016 at 06:08:57 UTC, Minas Mina wrote:Is the modules specification finalized though? As far as I know there were two implementations, clang's and vc++'s.I don't think it finalized. BTW, I think some of the Microsoft people have deleted some of their reddit comments. I can no longer find the statement where it was claimed that VC++ was left alone for two years in the Ballmer era. But it is rather obvious that VC++ needs more work than the other compilers, not sure how that affects the standardization process.
Mar 09 2016
On 3/8/16 10:54 AM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:On 08-Mar-2016 17:16, maik klein wrote:Again people discuss the GC in D. -- AndreiNot my post but I think it is an interesting discussion. https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/49dgdb/why_i_am_not_happy_with_c17_c_17_outlook_march/This more or less means that we (as in D enthusiasts) have some more time to carve up some "market" share. Till C++20 I guess.
Mar 08 2016
On Tuesday, 8 March 2016 at 21:32:28 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:Again people discuss the GC in D. -- AndreiWell, but the non-GC D example someone provided did not look like good advertising vs C++ either: alias Allocator = AllocatorList!(a => Region!Mallocator(1024 * 16), Mallocator); //… Allocator allocator; auto c = Container!(int, typeof(&allocator))(&allocator);
Mar 08 2016
On Tuesday, 8 March 2016 at 21:32:28 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:Again people discuss the GC in D. -- AndreiAre you guys making progress with rcstring and lifetimes?
Mar 08 2016
On 3/8/2016 7:54 AM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:This more or less means that we (as in D enthusiasts) have some more time to carve up some "market" share. Till C++20 I guess.Back in the olden (Zortech C++) days, lots of people told me that the next release of Microsoft C++ was going to be so awesome, it would bury us. That we might as well go buy our caskets and reserve a burial plot right now. This drumbeat would continue right up until the release. The release was always underwhelming, and ZTC++ would find even more customers. The same pundits would then say, yeah, that release wasn't that great. But the *next* release, that one will bury Zortech! And so it would go on for every release. Microsoft only buried us after we stopped working on it.
Mar 08 2016
On Tuesday, 8 March 2016 at 22:31:39 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:Back in the olden (Zortech C++) days, lots of people told me that the next release of Microsoft C++ was going to be so awesome, it would bury us. That we might as well go buy our caskets and reserve a burial plot right now. This drumbeat would continue right up until the release.Didn't MS spout the same 'awesome' OS they were working on that would have all the same features or better, and prevent OS2 from being adopted?
Mar 08 2016
On Tuesday, 8 March 2016 at 22:53:42 UTC, Era Scarecrow wrote:Didn't MS spout the same 'awesome' OS they were working on that would have all the same features or better, and prevent OS2 from being adopted?Windows NT was known for having a decent kernel. Vapour-ware was a common marketing strategy in the 80s and 90s, though. Not Microsoft specific.
Mar 08 2016
On 3/8/2016 2:53 PM, Era Scarecrow wrote:Didn't MS spout the same 'awesome' OS they were working on that would have all the same features or better, and prevent OS2 from being adopted?It wasn't Microsoft telling me that their next C++ release would bury Zortech. It was everyone else.
Mar 08 2016