5 ms·
C++0x Final Committee Draft Approved
- j_baker 17y agoShouldn't it be C++xx?
- frou_dh 17y agoC++0B
- weaksauce 17y agoC++0xB?
- bricestacey 17y ago0xB is hex for 10
- weaksauce 17y agoI know... his was missing an x is all.
- huhtenberg 17y agoThis is not backward-compatible. With C++98 that is.
- jrockway 17y agoOne thing I didn't realize until now is that the "0x" is not some reference to 0x1234568, but rather, it was supposed to be the last two digits of some year between 2000 and 2009. Oops. Anyway, I still don't see the point of C++ anymore. Is C++0x just for making legacy C++ codebases slightly easier to maintain by adding a few features over C++ + Boost?
- machrider 17y agoI think the most important change to C++ is the addition of a memory model and standard primitives for threading. In its current state, writing a truly thread-safe, portable program in C++ is nearly impossible. Edit: For some detail on the subject, see Boehm's paper, "Threads cannot be implemented as a library." http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2004/HPL-2004-209.pdf http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2004/HPL-2004-209.pdf [PDF]
- sorbits 17y agoLots of us use and love C++ and lots of new things is still being written in C++ — it is not a legacy language. C++98 introduced us to generic programming and C++0x continues along that path.
- chancho 17y agoPerformance. Until someone rewrites the entire Haskell standard library to use unboxed primitives and that stream fusion voodoo then C++ sits alone at the intersection of performance, abstraction and usability.