3 ms·
I would love compiler options for enforcing better practices and prohibiting old style code (no using bare new/delete, stricter implicit casts, etc.) It wouldn’
by sseagull 5y ago
I would love compiler options for enforcing better practices and prohibiting old style code (no using bare new/delete, stricter implicit casts, etc.) It wouldn’t fix everything but would go a long way.
It’s a little bit of a peeve of mine that people just decided on new languages instead. But it is what it is, and I am probably not knowledgeable enough to really judge.
- ReactiveJelly 5y agoYou can think of C++17 as a new language which happens to be able to compile most C++14, C++11, and C++98 programs. The trouble is, if every new version is _technically_ its own new language, and if you have to break compatibility a little, why not just break a lot and fix everything? It's not like C++ was ever known for ABI stability anyway.
- sseagull 5y agoThe benefit is that ability to compile that old code, even if it takes some flags or marking it unsafe or whatever. There is a lot of old code that will never be rewritten but is still valuable, and I believe we will waste a lot of time just language-shifting entire ecosystems as new languages come and go. Look at python 2 to 3. There are still packages out there on python 2 that haven’t been migrated. And thats mostly the same language! (Note that my view is colored somewhat because I am a scientific programmer)
- alephu5 5y agoFor those that don't want to upgrade, why not use a pinned compiler? Everyone else does this with other languages, and overall I think the benefits outweigh the costs.