3 ms·

> "replace feature from n-5 years with the newer feature in the latest 0x00x release" Let me put a more pro-C++ spin on that sentiment. C++ is a language that

> "replace feature from n-5 years with the newer feature in the latest 0x00x release" Let me put a more pro-C++ spin on that sentiment. C++ is a language that's under long-term development. It might sound weird, but only with C++20 Bjarne Stroustrup felt that his vision for the language was now mostly-realized - and he had worked on it since the 1980s. With other languages, there's a lot of clearing-of-the-desk and starting things anew, while C++ has opted for incremental changes with backwards compatibility to before it existed (i.e. C). But, looking back, we get the sentiment you describe. Which, rephrased, sounds like this: "Remember that annoying and ugly hack you had to use so far to get [complex thing] to work? Well, that finally got fixed. Now there's a shiny new language feature / standard library construct which does that more nicely. But your existing code will also work."

pjmlp 4y ago
A vision that ironically is only fulfilled by Visual C++, and who knows when GCC and clang will manage to reach it, specially in what concerns modules.
the_arcadian 4y ago
Agree 100%. The C++ language and ecosystem shouldn't feel dynamic, given its age and the installed base, and yet it really does. I remember when c++11 came out and all the crazy typedefs I had to type out just disappeared overnight, and I was able to write statements like "using Elem = uint64_t; using Node = MyClass::Node<Elem>;" which were so much more straightforward. Function pointers disappeared too and were replaced by lambdas so I could write my own "each_node" functions and actually have them be really useful. Then we had concurrency primitives, and now apparently there's a module system in c++20 which should be interesting. C++ clearly has no plans to bow out gracefully or otherwise go quietly into the night, which is fine by me since I still think it's the language which gives me, as a developer, the most freedom and control over the system.
AtlasBarfed 4y ago
"but only with C++20 Bjarne Stroustrup felt that his vision for the language was now mostly-realized" So... let me ask you given this statement. Let's say there is an uber smart super productive programmer who states: I can rewrite the entirety of the ecosystem of one language in 1 year.... Would you tell them to rewrite all C/C++ in C++20 or Rewrite it in Rust? C++'s only real advantage in the current language marketplace is an installed library base. But how much of that is C++0x2020? Is the barrier to entry of a new programmer in C++ not just 40 years of language revisions, but a massive massive map of libraries where JSON library uses features from v2016, while XML library uses v2005, while some multithreading thing uses v2020... And then there's the STL, and mixed-in-C standard library, ye gods. Will Rust turn into that? Well, I think it kind of will to some degree as they try to find dialects that perfectly describe borrower checker semantics. Rust is a syntax soup almost on par with C++, but I guess we'll see.
- einpoklum 4y ago
  > Would you tell them to rewrite all C/C++ in C++20 or Rewrite it in Rust? Neither. 1. I wouldn't trust a person who says something like that. It takes a programming luminary several years to write a good (non-trivial, not-tiny) library the community can get behind, and even that usually involves iterations of use, feedback and partial rewriting/redesign. 2. Why would we want a "rewrite of the entire ecosystem" (whatever that ecosystem may be) all at once? That's a fiasco waiting to happen. 3. An "ecosystem" very often needs to be at least somewhat backwards-compatible, so I wouldn't want it written in something that's just out of the nylons. Probably best to let that smart programmer write some decent foundational libraries which we can adopt one at a time, with increasing benefit of synergy. > C++'s only real advantage in the current language marketplace is an installed library base That seems untrue. C++ has various capabilities in different usage scenarios which other languages do not. But more importantly - programming languages don't all compete: They typically have different combinations of design goals. That's specifically true of C++ vs Rust. > But how much of that is C++0x2020? That doesn't matter much. For you, anything that's not written in the latest version of a language may be irrelevant/unusable. Not for the users of backwards (and forwards-) compatible languages like C, C++ and various others. > Is the barrier to entry of a new programmer in C++ not just 40 years of language revisions No, 40 years of revisions is not a barrier to entry. Your saying that makes it sound like you are not very familiar with the language. > mixed-in-C standard library, ye gods. double x = sqrt(x_squared); ... oh, the humanity! Who would ever write something like this? It's a non-polymorphic function and its symbol doesn't get mangled! Ye gods!

pjmlp 4y ago

A vision that ironically is only fulfilled by Visual C++, and who knows when GCC and clang will manage to reach it, specially in what concerns modules.

the_arcadian 4y ago

Agree 100%. The C++ language and ecosystem shouldn't feel dynamic, given its age and the installed base, and yet it really does. I remember when c++11 came out and all the crazy typedefs I had to type out just disappeared overnight, and I was able to write statements like "using Elem = uint64_t; using Node = MyClass::Node<Elem>;" which were so much more straightforward. Function pointers disappeared too and were replaced by lambdas so I could write my own "each_node" functions and actually have them be really useful. Then we had concurrency primitives, and now apparently there's a module system in c++20 which should be interesting. C++ clearly has no plans to bow out gracefully or otherwise go quietly into the night, which is fine by me since I still think it's the language which gives me, as a developer, the most freedom and control over the system.

AtlasBarfed 4y ago

"but only with C++20 Bjarne Stroustrup felt that his vision for the language was now mostly-realized" So... let me ask you given this statement. Let's say there is an uber smart super productive programmer who states: I can rewrite the entirety of the ecosystem of one language in 1 year.... Would you tell them to rewrite all C/C++ in C++20 or Rewrite it in Rust? C++'s only real advantage in the current language marketplace is an installed library base. But how much of that is C++0x2020? Is the barrier to entry of a new programmer in C++ not just 40 years of language revisions, but a massive massive map of libraries where JSON library uses features from v2016, while XML library uses v2005, while some multithreading thing uses v2020... And then there's the STL, and mixed-in-C standard library, ye gods. Will Rust turn into that? Well, I think it kind of will to some degree as they try to find dialects that perfectly describe borrower checker semantics. Rust is a syntax soup almost on par with C++, but I guess we'll see.

einpoklum 4y ago
> Would you tell them to rewrite all C/C++ in C++20 or Rewrite it in Rust? Neither. 1. I wouldn't trust a person who says something like that. It takes a programming luminary several years to write a good (non-trivial, not-tiny) library the community can get behind, and even that usually involves iterations of use, feedback and partial rewriting/redesign. 2. Why would we want a "rewrite of the entire ecosystem" (whatever that ecosystem may be) all at once? That's a fiasco waiting to happen. 3. An "ecosystem" very often needs to be at least somewhat backwards-compatible, so I wouldn't want it written in something that's just out of the nylons. Probably best to let that smart programmer write some decent foundational libraries which we can adopt one at a time, with increasing benefit of synergy. > C++'s only real advantage in the current language marketplace is an installed library base That seems untrue. C++ has various capabilities in different usage scenarios which other languages do not. But more importantly - programming languages don't all compete: They typically have different combinations of design goals. That's specifically true of C++ vs Rust. > But how much of that is C++0x2020? That doesn't matter much. For you, anything that's not written in the latest version of a language may be irrelevant/unusable. Not for the users of backwards (and forwards-) compatible languages like C, C++ and various others. > Is the barrier to entry of a new programmer in C++ not just 40 years of language revisions No, 40 years of revisions is not a barrier to entry. Your saying that makes it sound like you are not very familiar with the language. > mixed-in-C standard library, ye gods. double x = sqrt(x_squared); ... oh, the humanity! Who would ever write something like this? It's a non-polymorphic function and its symbol doesn't get mangled! Ye gods!