4 ms·

The author says he is content with C++ the way it is, yet he bemoans the good deal of time between major changes in the standard. This is a little inconsistent

The author says he is content with C++ the way it is, yet he bemoans the good deal of time between major changes in the standard. This is a little inconsistent. As a language that takes a long time to master, changing fundamental features of the language every 3rd year, for instance, would be a bit difficult to keep up with. Furthermore, the niche C++ lives in isn't one that needs to change every year. For some users, language stability and backwards compatibility are key, and with things like Boost, additions to C++ can be tried out in the wild for many years before being standardized (as many features slated for the newest standard were).

johndcook 16y ago
I see how that could sound inconsistent. But I'm not bemoaning the time it takes between changes to the standard as much as pointing out that these long intervals show that the language is done. I'd rather see the standards committee give up than hurry up.
- dkarl 16y ago
  It's fine for a language to be "done" or "over." It's still important until it has been replaced for practical purposes by another language. Until then, why not keep making improvements? I wouldn't put C++ on my list of favorite languages, but I expect my C++ skills to be an asset for a long time to come. As always when talking about the continued relevance of C++, I will celebrate when I'm proved wrong.
- greyman 16y ago
  I see your point, but agree with the parent comment more. The current state of the C++ just doesn't require the committee to hurry up, and the language is not done, even if it would take five more years to have new standard approved. As I see it, the new standard just isn't something which would change the future of C++ in some significant way, and it is not the most pressing problem C++ has as a language. From my perspective, what I would like to see more is some alternative to boost, with similar functionality but without that meta-meta-programming. ;-) Simply, more cross-platform libraries comprehensible for the average C++ programmers.
CodeMage 16y ago
I don't find it inconsistent at all. The author explains that C++ has become sort of a niche language for him.

johndcook 16y ago

I see how that could sound inconsistent. But I'm not bemoaning the time it takes between changes to the standard as much as pointing out that these long intervals show that the language is done. I'd rather see the standards committee give up than hurry up.

dkarl 16y ago
It's fine for a language to be "done" or "over." It's still important until it has been replaced for practical purposes by another language. Until then, why not keep making improvements? I wouldn't put C++ on my list of favorite languages, but I expect my C++ skills to be an asset for a long time to come. As always when talking about the continued relevance of C++, I will celebrate when I'm proved wrong.
greyman 16y ago
I see your point, but agree with the parent comment more. The current state of the C++ just doesn't require the committee to hurry up, and the language is not done, even if it would take five more years to have new standard approved. As I see it, the new standard just isn't something which would change the future of C++ in some significant way, and it is not the most pressing problem C++ has as a language. From my perspective, what I would like to see more is some alternative to boost, with similar functionality but without that meta-meta-programming. ;-) Simply, more cross-platform libraries comprehensible for the average C++ programmers.

CodeMage 16y ago

I don't find it inconsistent at all. The author explains that C++ has become sort of a niche language for him.