3 ms·

Don't use C++03 in 2016 please.

• hikarudo 11y ago
  Except if the compiler for your target platform (cough TI DSP cough) supports only C++03, and never will support anything newer.
• whitegrape 11y ago
  > Don't use C++ in 2016 please. Fixed that for you.
  • ska 11y ago
    No, you really didn't. For all it's problems (some of which are being addressed in recent standard update , some not so much yet) it remains the best available tool for some domains. More's the pity.
  • 1024core 11y ago
    Seriously. C++ seems like a layer of hacks, one upon another, each designed to "fix" things in the layers below, only to add more confusion. Maybe "D" is the answer, or Go...? I don't know. I started with C++ a long time ago, but for whatever reason, kept getting out of it (for a few years) and then every time I'd get back in, I'd be surprised at the new stuff.
• jjnoakes 11y ago
  Not all of us have the luxury of using the latest compilers. Or the systems we support don't even have compilers which handle anything newer than C++03. Do you think compiler support is instantaneous for all platforms on all operating systems, retroactively, when the standard is published?
  • xorblurb 11y ago
    instantaneous != retroactively, neither it is the same as "5 years after". And all major compiler vendors have since learned that they need to be up to date with the standard ASAP, even before official publication when it is possible. Advocating C++ < 11 is harmful to the community, given how bad it was at that time.
    • jjnoakes 11y ago
      Suggesting that compilers immediately adopt the latest standards is the "instantaneous". Suggesting that older versions of the compilers (which may be the latest available versions on certain systems) also do so is the "retroactive". So no, they are not the same. But yes, they are both reasons why one can not just blindly start using the latest features from the latest standards.