4 ms·
The C++11 is still common enough that if you want a large usage group it's the target. However, it's parsing to a DOM and doesn't use features like PMR, so the
by beached_whale 5y ago
The C++11 is still common enough that if you want a large usage group it's the target. However, it's parsing to a DOM and doesn't use features like PMR, so the language features needed won't be more than std containers and stuff.
- pjmlp 5y agoSpecially among the C+ community groups.
- beached_whale 5y agoIt is changing and I saw some survey’s showing 17 around 1/2 the shops. I know for my JSON library it wouldn’t be possible without C++ 17 so it’s a loss of eyes
- pjmlp 5y agoYeah, thing is how much C++17 is actually used beyond the language version. For example, C++/WinRT is a C++17 library, yet plenty of samples use C style strings and vectors.
- beached_whale 5y agoI use a lot of core C++17 isms. They make some things doable and others clearer. But I think C++17 really helped a lot in generic programming in addition to the containers it introduced.
- quietbritishjim 5y agoI think it makes sense to target C++11. Just that you shouldn't then call the library "modern".
- nlohmann 5y agoThere is also a SAX parser. But to be honest, I have not yet played around with PMR.
- beached_whale 5y agoI know when I was benching JSON Link, I saw 30-50% increase in perf at the time when using better allocators and PMR can help a lot there with things like bump allocators.