3 ms·
> or are just unwilling to improve themselves Or they may not see that stuff as an improvement in the first place (e.g. see Orthodox C++[0]). [0] https://gist
by badsectoracula 6y ago
> or are just unwilling to improve themselves
Or they may not see that stuff as an improvement in the first place (e.g. see Orthodox C++[0]).
[0] https://gist.github.com/bkaradzic/2e39896bc7d8c34e042b https://gist.github.com/bkaradzic/2e39896bc7d8c34e042b
- hyperpl 6y agoWow, I thought I was alone.
- ncmncm 6y agoIt is always the right time to learn modern C++. Discomfort is not a valid reason to avoid learning new things.
- Jtsummers 6y agoIf I'm reading that right, they start off talking about a minimalist/reduced subset of C++, and then end up concluding: Use C++14 (now two standards ago) and we'll probably recommend C++17 in 2022 (5 year delay). That seems like a rather weak conclusion given all the words that preceded it. You might as well just start and end with this: New standards have issues, people don't know how to use them correctly, and compilers are slow to catch up. Wait 5 years to use a standard so all these things are worked out, and you don't have to worry about the details that don't stick.
- badsectoracula 6y agoThe C++14 part seem to be added lately and indeed sounds contradictory to what was written previously. As a comment below writes though they use the original Orthodox C++ idea without the C++14 part (and TBH i think the whole "committee" part is a tongue-in-cheek joke). In any case this is just an example, there are a couple of similar "subsets" with the same idea of keeping C++ use to its bare minimum, it is just that i remember this one because of the name :-P