3 ms·
Yes. People are "only allowed to claim" to know about the merits of a language that they actually know. C++20 is the C++ to compare against, unless she wants to
by ncmncm 5y ago
Yes. People are "only allowed to claim" to know about the merits of a language that they actually know. C++20 is the C++ to compare against, unless she wants to compare against, say, Rust as it was in 2014. C++98 is simply not an honest basis for comparison.
I don't need "thinly veiled insults" when the facts speak for themselves. The author had no need to mention C++ at all. Then, she would not have found herself making ignorant comparisons.
- tialaramex 5y ago> C++20 is the C++ to compare against Admitting that each ISO standard is a distinct language (so, C++ 20 is distinct from C++ 17 and C++ 03 and so on) and insisting upon naming them this way would of course satisfy this concern. But doing so would also highlight the uncomfortable reality that C++ 20 isn't a real language programmers can use yet - compiler vendors are still implementing this standard and won't be done for a while. It would also highlight the fragmentation, you would need to pick one of these different C++ languages to write some software, and in doing so rule out using the others. And that's a pretty poor alternative to Rust, which is one real language Maxime and her team were able to use to write this software.
- metadat 5y agoncmncm, what is your specific definition for "actually" knowing a programming language? If it's something like "mastery over most or all facets and nuances", perhaps there are a few thousand human beings in total who meet this qualification. Across all programming languages across the entire Earth.
- ncmncm 5y agoTrolling is generally unwelcome here.