4 ms·
Most of this I agree with. Frankly, though, Stroudtrup’s design goals are better: multi-paradigm programming, you don’t pay for what you don’t use, etc. Some p
by jonstewart 6y ago
Most of this I agree with. Frankly, though, Stroudtrup’s design goals are better: multi-paradigm programming, you don’t pay for what you don’t use, etc.
Some points:
* There are still tons of 32 bit machines out there—old Windows machines chugging along, usually disconnected (thankfully), and you’d like to be able to use your _current_ codebase to target them.
* If C++ is to focus on performance, it needs much better tooling around UB, be a bit more permissive of old behavior that now triggers UB, with formal semantics, AND it needs to define semi-portable SIMD vector operations. Getting the utmost performance out of modern CPUs entails using vector operations.
* It also makes me sad to say goodbye to big endian.
- zengid 6y ago> it needs much better fooling around UB Typo or sarcasm?
- jonstewart 6y agoHa! Freudian Typo. Thanks!
- gumby 6y agoThough I cut my teeth on BE machines, I know that’s in the past (as are their non-power-of-two word lengths). But 64-bit machines is an unnecessary jump. Even 32-bit microcontrollers are expensive for many applications.
- gpderetta 6y agoI doubt that C++ dropping 32 bits is ever going to happen.
- mihaaly 6y agoWhy is making C++ (even more) multi-paradigm a good thing? Why not making a new paradigm specific new one instead? (as there are, so just use those)
- bluGill 6y agoBecause there is no one true paradigm to rule them all. I want to pick the Right one for my current problem and have it work with my other code with a different problem and thus a different paradigm.