3 ms·
C++ before 2011 springs to mind. From "Direction for ISO C++"[1]: "C++ is expert-friendly, but it cannot be just expert-friendly without losing important stream
by TheMonarchist 5y ago
C++ before 2011 springs to mind. From "Direction for ISO C++"[1]:
"C++ is expert-friendly, but it cannot be just expert-friendly without losing important streams of new talent. This was the case before C++11 and C++11 reversed that negative
trend."
[1]: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2022/p2000r3.pdf http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2022/p200...
- shadowofneptune 5y agoI do rather wish C++ 11 was a blank slate for that reason. Not really, as that'd kill C++, but there's so much good about C++ that is held back by its backwards compatibility with C and the dark ages of pre-11 C++. Data types and features are intended as best practice, but it's stuffed away in libraries since it can't replace the core of the language.
- Animats 5y agoC++ evolution since Rust came along has been amusing. Finally, the C++ designers take safety seriously, now that there's a competitive threat. Until a decade ago, they didn't. I used to argue with some of the committee members over that. The trouble is, C++ does safety by using templates to paper over the underlying C memory model. This never quite works. The mold always seeps through the wallpaper. Raw pointers are needed for too many APIs.