2 ms·
Of course, deprecating libraries that are in use is hard. What could be done however, is finding a coherent best subset of current available options which are
by makapuf 11y ago
Of course, deprecating libraries that are in use is hard.
What could be done however, is finding a coherent best subset of current available options which are defined as "the current", blessed C++. Smaller than C++ as a whole, simpler to fit in your head (hopefully), and setting the rest as deprecated. but still complete and coherent.
Maybe it's already done, in that case it just lacks a name a website and more publicity !
- _kst_ 11y agoSome might argue that that coherent subset is called "C". (I wouldn't, but some might.)
- gpderetta 11y agoSome others would say that the intersection between the sane subset and "C" is empty.
- vmorgulis 11y agoYes, we need that subset. We could call that RC++ (or rC++, like RPython is a reduced Python). What I would put in that subset: - constructors/destructors (RAII) - auto (type inference) - class with template arguments (no nesting) - variadic templates for function parameters What I would remove: - virtual - rtti - complex templates (nesting) - no STL (or something new and/or based on POSIX) - no private/protected in classes (public by default) - or remove class (only structures) - operator overloading - namespaces - name mangling (a.b gives a_b) I imagine a good subset as something that Thorvalds could approve and ideally allow in the kernel.