11–20 of 63 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its so much simpler :)
I agree, but $ doesn't make the language way more uglier than what it is now?
Are they really going to add $ to C++? Unbelievable. What was wrong with "reflexpr"? It is way more C++'ish than "$". Update: From Herb's blog : "Also, a vocal minority in the committee strongly want a syntax that does not include the $ character (not just for $class, but also for $expr reflection) because they have large code bases that use $ in source code that is not C++ code but is processed to emit C++; removing…
It's still up in the air I think - you can see from his blog[1] that others in the the committee prefer a syntax more like meta::type interface(const meta::type source) { // … basically same code … }; [1] https://herbsutter.com/2017/07/26/metaclasses-thoughts-on-ge...
I am very interested in having Reflection in C++. But tbh $ makes it really awkward.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH9VCN6UkyQ
Just as the scripting languages took a big bite out of C/C++ usage starting in the 90s, I think we're seeing another couple use-case for C/C++ pull off:
1) stuff that is performance sensitive but security sensitive as well (Rust) 2) stuff that is soooo performance sensitive that Rust and C++ are actually too bloated, but which isn't really security sensitive so the guarantees that Rust/Modern C++ offer aren't worth it (Jai, Blow's language).
Category 1 is clearly real, but Category 2 might be too small to sustain itself (though Blow makes an economic argument that it would be worth it).
Are we just going to keep peeling back C/C++ users from the pack with more specifically-useful languages until there are none left except for those maintaining legacy code? Or are there use-cases where C++ will continue to make sense?
I guess a lot of this depends on whether or not we can meaningfully "modernize" C++ through the standards process without simply bolting on a lot more features that add to the bloat. I wouldn't wager much that this trick can be pulled off.
Jonathan Blow (cult/indie game developer/studio owner) has a lot of ideas about evolving C++ (or rather, building a new language to replace it) specifically in a game industry context. This perspective is interesting because its kind of running at a different angle away from the "memory-safe, better guarantees" project that Rust is workin on. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH9VCN6UkyQ Just as the scripting languages…
Really though for what he wants to do you want a flexible framework(scripting language) backed by a fast engine(native). Jai sounds pretty interesting but I don't know if Blow has the interest in building an ecosystem around it or just using it for his own projects.
FWIW my ideal use case is Lua + Rust. I've done it on a few projects so far and really love the combo of flex + stability.
Jonathan Blow (cult/indie game developer/studio owner) has a lot of ideas about evolving C++ (or rather, building a new language to replace it) specifically in a game industry context. This perspective is interesting because its kind of running at a different angle away from the "memory-safe, better guarantees" project that Rust is workin on. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH9VCN6UkyQ Just as the scripting languages…
I should revisit the topic in light of the latest progress with C++ and to correct some errors in those posts but I continue to believe that C++ is getting better as a language for games.
There is a somewhat legitimate argument that C++ is too complex but I don't believe you can make a convincing case that it justifies creating a whole new language (which will inevitably come with its own quirks, idiosyncracies and complexities) rather than engaging with the development of C++ itself.
Jonathan Blow (cult/indie game developer/studio owner) has a lot of ideas about evolving C++ (or rather, building a new language to replace it) specifically in a game industry context. This perspective is interesting because its kind of running at a different angle away from the "memory-safe, better guarantees" project that Rust is workin on. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH9VCN6UkyQ Just as the scripting languages…
Jonathan Blow (cult/indie game developer/studio owner) has a lot of ideas about evolving C++ (or rather, building a new language to replace it) specifically in a game industry context. This perspective is interesting because its kind of running at a different angle away from the "memory-safe, better guarantees" project that Rust is workin on. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH9VCN6UkyQ Just as the scripting languages…
If you expect Jai to be faster than C++ I think you will end up disappointed. There isn't much reason there should be any more performance disparity than Clang and a different C++ compiler. The only language that I think could be really be called faster than C++ is ISPC.
Jonathan Blow (cult/indie game developer/studio owner) has a lot of ideas about evolving C++ (or rather, building a new language to replace it) specifically in a game industry context. This perspective is interesting because its kind of running at a different angle away from the "memory-safe, better guarantees" project that Rust is workin on. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH9VCN6UkyQ Just as the scripting languages…
I think of it like bicycling: one could use the same bike for commuting, road racing, mountain biking, and BMX, and you'd certainly save room in your garage, but most people do not need to do all four of those activities and will instead invest in bikes that make tradeoffs to excel in the use cases that they actually care about.
Jonathan Blow (cult/indie game developer/studio owner) has a lot of ideas about evolving C++ (or rather, building a new language to replace it) specifically in a game industry context. This perspective is interesting because its kind of running at a different angle away from the "memory-safe, better guarantees" project that Rust is workin on. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH9VCN6UkyQ Just as the scripting languages…
I went back and forth over email with Jonathan Blow a while back and my opinion is that C++ is moving in a direction where it addresses most of his concerns about its suitability for game programming, though he doesn't agree. I wrote a few blog posts elaborating on why, starting with: http://blog.mattnewport.com/why-c17-is-the-new-programming-l... I should revisit the topic in light of the latest progress with C++ an…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I went back and forth over email with Jonathan Blow a while back and my opinion is that C++ is moving in a direction where it addresses most of his concerns about its suitability for game programming, though he doesn't agree. I wrote a few blog posts elaborating on why, starting with: http://blog.mattnewport.com/why-c17-is-the-new-programming-l... I should revisit the topic in light of the latest progress with C++ an…
Interesting; i think it’s fairly clear by now engaging with C++ is not going to lead to reduced complexity at all. When was the last time it removed support for a feature? That’s not what the language needs because it’s more interested in preserving existing code bases than it is at improving them (the latter being a huge effort, truly massive, so i understand the decision and don’t mean it as a slight in the least).