4 ms·
In 1992 it probably wouldn't have had templates nor much of much else (it wasn't standardized until 1998). Modern C++ is barely the same language anymore.
by hvs 10y ago
In 1992 it probably wouldn't have had templates nor much of much else (it wasn't standardized until 1998). Modern C++ is barely the same language anymore.
- badsectoracula 10y agoBorland C++ 3.1 (mentioned in the article) does have templates, although it doesn't have nested templates. It also didn't have namespaces (i think that was added in 5.0, which was still released before the first C++ standard). Keep in mind that the C++98 mainly standardized what compilers were already doing.
- throewai 10y agoIt's basically an ugly Python now.
- pvg 10y agoThe source is also plain C. Id/Carmack didn't switch to C++ until Doom 3.