61–70 of 191 posts
"upcoming anti-C++ safety regulations" Is this a thing really or just FUD?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know if you're in the minority or I am, but I find modern C++ to be borderline intolerable (and I've been programming mostly in C++ from before there were C++ compilers). I used to love C++ (and still do if we're talking about older standards), but the new stuff is just a baroque torture.
Aye, same here. I don't mond C++ evolving into some thing of its own beyond all recognition, but there is a distinct lack of modern "C with Classes" language. Basically, C on steroids. There are attempts at that, but none is perfect and/or has enough traction to be viable.
There's more viable coding styles in C++ than I can honestly even bother to count. There's absolutely no reason to limit the language to one specific coding style when doing so would alienate large groups of users and you can set those limits yourself on your project.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's less about not wanting memory safety and more that compilation speeds are so time-wastingly abysmal that it's a few orders of magnitude more important to address. The whole deal with interpreted languages was to avoid sitting there for a few minutes every time you make a god damn one letter change, with the unfortunate but usually acceptable trade-off of some execution speed.
And the additional trade-off that some bugs are only noticed at runtime when that particular line is executed while it could have been noticed by the compiler of a strongly typed language. Pytype helps but at this point you have a static analyzer that potentially runs as slow as a compiler without the additional performance benefit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's easy to see that driving on the RIGHT side of the road is a fit as a general mode of transportation. Adoption by millions is a testament to that. It's easy to see that driving on the LEFT side of the road is a fit as a general mode of transportation. Adoption by millions is a testament to that. Both statements are true. The author didn't say only C++ is fit. Nor did he say a program written in BOTH C++ AND pytho…
No. I'm not saying that C++ is not fit as a general purpose programming language. It very well may be. All I'm saying is that "adoption by millions is a testament to [the fitness of C++]" is not a valid argument. If it were, "adoption by millions is a testament to truth of [objective religious claim X]" would be a valid argument, and it manifestly isn't because different religions make mutually exclusive objective cl…
The equivalent statement would be that "adoption by millions is a testament to the viability of X as a cohesive religion".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. I'm not saying that C++ is not fit as a general purpose programming language. It very well may be. All I'm saying is that "adoption by millions is a testament to [the fitness of C++]" is not a valid argument. If it were, "adoption by millions is a testament to truth of [objective religious claim X]" would be a valid argument, and it manifestly isn't because different religions make mutually exclusive objective cl…
"adoption of X is a testament that it is fit for purpose" and "adoption of X is a testament of truth" are two incredibly different things. The equivalent statement would be that "adoption by millions is a testament to the viability of X as a cohesive religion".
If C++ wants to continue evolving, it needs breaking changes. It needs to impose a migration duty to the user, but that is not going to happen. So it will die a death by entropy where noone can know the language.
Then nobody will use the new compiler because nobody wants to rewrite millions of LOC and introduce new bugs.
> It is easy to see that C++ is fit as a general-purpose programming language–adoption by millions is a testament to that. I really wish the std would drop this pretense and focus on C++'s strong point: Continue being the fastest systems language possible. Everywhere in the std lib you can see compromises that require rewriting substantial portions for any real time application. Things like: shared_ptr eagerly using…
Why does this have to be part of the standard library? Isn't that the whole point of Boost, that one is not limited to what's in std?
Nevermind the language itself, we need a way to pull compilers and project dependencies, pinned to their specific versions, with a single, ergonomic tool. vcpkg seemed really promising but the fact that they didn't start with library versioning from the get go was a very stupid decision, and nowadays versions are pinned to specific commit hashes rather than actual dependency versions, and libraries that weren't previ…
"upcoming anti-C++ safety regulations" Is this a thing really or just FUD?
It's both and neither. Some countries are considering legislation to require "memory-safe" tooling for "critical" workloads, and C++ has never been placed on the "memory-safe tooling" list.
Is this a response to some specific set of proposals? I know there's been a lot of general angst / misunderstanding over C++ memory safety.