I'm assuming C++14 will have 1320 keywords and a bunch of weird operators to use so people can ignore it even more than it's being ignored.
um, C++ is the most widely used language in the world.
We have C++14
21–30 of 353 posts
Re: We have C++14
#22Recent standard draft (2014-03) https://github.com/zygoloid/cplusplus/blob/master/papers/N39...
Do you know where I can find a diff?
I'd like to see whats new with 14.
Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2B14#New_language_features
Re: We have C++14
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
In languages like C++ "verbose" means "specific and obvious" which is something you want to have when writing certain kinds of code. It's annoying, it's a drag on productivity, but in the long run it's arguably necessary. Some other languages which reduce verbosity by making more things implicit make it harder to understand what's actually going on behind the scenes. You lose a lot of information.
A lot of C++ verbosity comes simply from bad defaults. Const and virtual should be the default for example, not the other way around. Would stop the virtual destructor ommision problem, and if you need efficiency you could make destructors non-virtual. Also in the "hiding stuff behind the scenes" department C++ is quite bad. SomeClass someMethod(SomeClass a, SomeClass b) { ... } is doing a lot behind the scenes. Code…
Uh, no, "virtual" should absolutely NOT be the default. I don't know where you got that idea from (Java?) but it's absolutely horrible.
Re: We have C++14
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of C++ verbosity comes simply from bad defaults. Const and virtual should be the default for example, not the other way around. Would stop the virtual destructor ommision problem, and if you need efficiency you could make destructors non-virtual. Also in the "hiding stuff behind the scenes" department C++ is quite bad. SomeClass someMethod(SomeClass a, SomeClass b) { ... } is doing a lot behind the scenes. Code…
Uh, no, "virtual" should absolutely NOT be the default. I don't know where you got that idea from (Java?) but it's absolutely horrible.
Why would it be bad? You could always add non-virtual (inline maybe? it's already useless keyword) if you need the performance, and most of the code doesn't. And it's a source of errors.
Re: We have C++14
#25Can anyone recommend a book on modern C++?
Re: We have C++14
#26When I started writing C++ around 5 years ago, I had a perception that it was a language that is "on its way out". As I learned more and more of it, I've been super impressed at how modern it is becoming, and how it is adapting to overcome its perceived flaws. It is becoming a killer language to me: blazing fast, modern, ubiquitous, stable, and expressive.
I _completely_ agree. I think people need to start talking about how, when combined with the right tools and compilers, you can achieve nearly anything you can with another "modern" language more expressively and faster, all while being compatible with decades of massive c, c++, and objective-c libraries.
Perhaps we should start with dispelling the old notion that one "shouldn't use" the STL.
Re: We have C++14
#27I'm assuming C++14 will have 1320 keywords and a bunch of weird operators to use so people can ignore it even more than it's being ignored.
um, C++ is the most widely used language in the world.
Okay, that's incorrect. It's a bit hard to say whether it is Java, Javascript or C, but it's certainly not C++.
Re: We have C++14
#28When I started writing C++ around 5 years ago, I had a perception that it was a language that is "on its way out". As I learned more and more of it, I've been super impressed at how modern it is becoming, and how it is adapting to overcome its perceived flaws. It is becoming a killer language to me: blazing fast, modern, ubiquitous, stable, and expressive.
This is totally true. The downside, of course, is just how much code exists that is written in pre-C++11 dialects, and how many programmers are trained to write that sort of code. I like way more of C++11 than I liked of the prior version, but there's just so much that's accumulated over the years. I wonder if breaking backwards compatibility is the key, but then I look at Python 3 and think, well, probably not.
Also, how many companies are afraid of the new features and deprecate them internally (fearing compiler bugs, lack of portability, and/or unmaintainability). I still haven't had a chance to use full C++11 in a professional context.
Re: We have C++14
#29When I started writing C++ around 5 years ago, I had a perception that it was a language that is "on its way out". As I learned more and more of it, I've been super impressed at how modern it is becoming, and how it is adapting to overcome its perceived flaws. It is becoming a killer language to me: blazing fast, modern, ubiquitous, stable, and expressive.
This is totally true. The downside, of course, is just how much code exists that is written in pre-C++11 dialects, and how many programmers are trained to write that sort of code. I like way more of C++11 than I liked of the prior version, but there's just so much that's accumulated over the years. I wonder if breaking backwards compatibility is the key, but then I look at Python 3 and think, well, probably not.
> The downside, of course, is just how much code exists that is written in pre-C++11 dialects, and how many programmers are trained to write that sort of code.
I do the same thing. Not because I can't write C++11, but because I still encounter systems with older compilers that I want to run programs on. What, is this surprising?
Let's face reality: it's a little unreasonable to expect every system you work on to have a compiler less than 3 years old.
Especially true on older Linux systems, it's sometimes a massive pain or even pretty much impossible to upgrade the existing compiler in a package-manager-friendly way (try upgrading Ubuntu 12.04's compiler to GCC 4.9, for example), so you'd have to compiler the compiler from scratch. Which is a pretty massive PITA and more or less requires a PhD of its own for GCC (Clang is a little better). And on Windows VC++ isn't always exactly following the correct standard. It's not necessarily outright impossible, but it's pretty impractical.
Re: We have C++14
#30Can anyone recommend a book on modern C++?
Yeah, this would be a god send. As someone who is writing more and more C++ for computer vision type stuff, a modern overview would be great. I am stuck working off of things I learned over the years and don't feel quite like I'm writing modern idiomatic C++