191–200 of 285 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can assure us based on what? If you have insider knowledge or particular credentials please share. So far it looks like you're ranting.
He assures us based on him being Walter Bright. That’s good enough for me.
My comment was aimed at notacoward.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can assure us based on what? If you have insider knowledge or particular credentials please share. So far it looks like you're ranting.
http://www.walterbright.com/ > Walter Bright is the creator and first implementer of the D programming language and has implemented compilers for several other languages. He's an expert in all areas of compiler technology, including front ends, optimizers, code generation, interpreter engines and runtime libraries. Walter regularly writes articles about compilers and programming, is known for engaging and informative…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
scare me ... because at least I know for sure what'll happen then. Which is just because once you learned how pointers behave. Similarly, if you'd just take the time to learn the basics of rvalues, moving, RVO, ..., you won't be scared by them anymore. Might thake longer than pointers, sure, but it's worth it.
Maybe this is just my experience, but it took me far longer to understand the subtleties of move semantics, rvalues, and RVO than to understand pointers and references in C++. And this is not even getting into “universal references” (which I don’t have a comfortable understanding of either)
Edit - I may have the wrong videos linked. It could be his talk on Universal References [3] that I'm thinking of. It's been a while.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhM24zs1MFA
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7qwpuA3EpU
[3] https://channel9.msdn.com/Shows/Going+Deep/Cpp-and-Beyond-20...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh give me a break. Following this logic, why aren't you writing your code in English? The real world is complex. Don't confuse hiding complexity with minimizing complexity.
See Brooks's "No Silver Bullet". C++'s complexity is accidental.
The author states: >Neither the performance issue that move semantics address nor the perfect forwarding problem exist in classic OO languages that use reference semantics and garbage collection for user-defined types." I understand reference semantics but what are move semantics? Also what is the "perfect forwarding problem"?
Author here. A few years back, I wrote an article about the issues that you're asking about. Since the article still comes up as the #1 result of Google search for "C++ rvalue references", I believe it's ok for me to recommend it here: http://thbecker.net/articles/rvalue_references/section_01.ht... Warning: Read only if you have a serious interest in C++.
Lots of posts here frame it like "Yes, it's a bit of a complex language, but the C++ committee has the difficult job of keeping everything backwards compatible, so it's understandable." But that's not the reality. The reality is that they (or Stroustroup) made that decision, and that decision was a mistake. The correct way to deal with backwards compatibility issues is the way Go does it, namely to write tools to aut…
The lesson here is that languages should restrict their backwards-incompatible changes to only those that are amenable to automatic migration via limited gofix-like tools, but that runs counter to your argument that C++ ought to be casting off its C heritage (which I quite sympathize with).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Object Pascal is definitely reference based, not value-based, at least not when I used it back in Delphi 7.
You used Delphi, not Object Pascal. Object Pascal was created by Apple for Lisa and Mac OS, with collaboration from Niklaus Wirth. Borland then adopted it to Turbo Pascal 5.5 for MS-DOS. Turbo Pascal 6.0 and 7.0 for MS-DOS, followed by Turbo Pascal 1.0 and 1.5 for Windows 3.x took up ideas from C++. Borland then rebooted Turbo Pascal with Delphi, but to avoid creating too much confusion among Pascal developers, they…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know I'm in dangerous territory here, but what if the C++ community, as in committee, compilers, etc., pull a Javascript strict mode? Basically subsequent C++ compilers provide the possibility of some subset of C++ which is considered modern. Then files can be marked with it, at which point the C++ compilers reject deprecated idioms. Over time this should take over, I think most of the JS in the wild is now using s…
The header inclusion model (where you will be textually including hundreds of thousand lines of random code in a translation unit) doesn't make it easy to have version flags. Also many of the issues are intrinsic to the way the language has evolved (the template compilation model for example), it is not just a matter of deprecating a few features here and there (although that might help)