C++ braced initializers and type deduction
scottmeyers.blogspot.ca
C++ braced initializers and type deduction
1–10 of 38 posts
Re: C++ braced initializers and type deduction
#2How does the C++ committee actually work, if the experts can have these kinds of open questions?
Re: C++ braced initializers and type deduction
#3How does the C++ committee actually work, if the experts can have these kinds of open questions?
Like any ANSI/ISO committee, you need to be a member to seat on those meetings and discuss everything language related.
To become a member you need to pay for it, so most members are employees from compiler vendors.
Everyone else only gets access to what gets published as public information, hence the doubts due to not being present in those meetings.
Re: C++ braced initializers and type deduction
#4How does the C++ committee actually work, if the experts can have these kinds of open questions?
Like any ANSI/ISO committee, you need to be a member to seat on those meetings and discuss everything language related. To become a member you need to pay for it, so most members are employees from compiler vendors. Everyone else only gets access to what gets published as public information, hence the doubts due to not being present in those meetings.
Thanks! (In my naive ways, I would have guessed that perhaps speaking rights were restricted, but that everyone was allowed to read and listen.)
The ANSI/ISO way seems like the opposite of what you'd want in a (open) programming language, doesn't it?
Re: C++ braced initializers and type deduction
#5The entirety of C++ initialization rules has become a byzantine mess of epic proportions and any change is bound to add another level of combinatorial explosion. There's just no way out of it.
I can tell you how C++ will die. It will die because all C++ programmers will soon be dead for one simple reason: Our brains are incapable of knowing C++ well enough to write safe C++ code and knowing something else at the same time.
Knowing all the rules and exceptions to those rules in C++ will overwhelm the neocortex of C++ programmers and start to usurp older parts of the brain to the point where heart rate and body temperature get out of control and they/we all die an agonizing death.
As a C++ programmer I am struggling right now trying to leave this path to seemingly inevitable doom. But the insane complexity of C++ has this addictive allure of making me feel so incredibly competent and important, a bearer of secret knowledge that underpins the world's most important systems.
Re: C++ braced initializers and type deduction
#6Oh dear. Scott Meyers calls himself "just a grunt on the ground". I think we're all doomed.
Re: C++ braced initializers and type deduction
#7Oh dear. Scott Meyers calls himself "just a grunt on the ground". I think we're all doomed.
(To clarify, Scott is one of my heroes from my days following the ever-evolving C++ standard. Anything that leaves him feeling like a "grunt" is, to a fair approximation, hairier than Chewbacca.)
Re: C++ braced initializers and type deduction
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like any ANSI/ISO committee, you need to be a member to seat on those meetings and discuss everything language related. To become a member you need to pay for it, so most members are employees from compiler vendors. Everyone else only gets access to what gets published as public information, hence the doubts due to not being present in those meetings.
Thanks! (In my naive ways, I would have guessed that perhaps speaking rights were restricted, but that everyone was allowed to read and listen.) The ANSI/ISO way seems like the opposite of what you'd want in a (open) programming language, doesn't it?
You get to know what is going on by posts from members, like this one
https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/blogs/5894415f-...
The ANSI/ISO way is the best way to standardize technology. The alternative being a reference implementation subject to a benevolent dictator with everyone discussing what the right license should be.
Any implementor knows what is supposed to be compliant with, as long as, its implementation follows a well defined standard, regardless of what license it decides to publish under and what type of implementation (compiler/interpreter/JIT/,...)
Re: C++ braced initializers and type deduction
#9The entirety of C++ initialization rules has become a byzantine mess of epic proportions and any change is bound to add another level of combinatorial explosion. There's just no way out of it. I can tell you how C++ will die. It will die because all C++ programmers will soon be dead for one simple reason: Our brains are incapable of knowing C++ well enough to write safe C++ code and knowing something else at the same…
Same here. C11 has driven me into mobile app development with Java and Objective C. And that's after 10+ years of C++ experience and most people consider me a C++ expert.
Re: C++ braced initializers and type deduction
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks! (In my naive ways, I would have guessed that perhaps speaking rights were restricted, but that everyone was allowed to read and listen.) The ANSI/ISO way seems like the opposite of what you'd want in a (open) programming language, doesn't it?
You get to know what is going on by posts from members, like this one https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/blogs/5894415f-... The ANSI/ISO way is the best way to standardize technology. The alternative being a reference implementation subject to a benevolent dictator with everyone discussing what the right license should be. Any implementor knows what is supposed to be compliant with, as long as, its implemen…
Thanks for the link!
> The ANSI/ISO way is the best way to standardize technology. The alternative being a reference implementation subject to a benevolent dictator with everyone discussing what the right license should be.
That's a false dilemma. You can have a standard that's discussed and decided on in a forum that's not ANSI/ISO.