4 ms·

> What's wrong about old people? > > The problem are people that don't want to change anymore. But this trait is independent form age in my experience. Nothing

> What's wrong about old people? > > The problem are people that don't want to change anymore. But this trait is independent form age in my experience. Nothing is wrong with old people. That's not what I was trying to say but people in their 50s or 60s will not be working for much longer. I don't think there will be many people left working __on__ C++ and its tooling in 10 years. > But nevertheless, that C++ doesn't attract new developers may have reasons indeed. C++ refuses to get substantially modernized. In the long run such a stance will attract less and less people I think. I think there are some pretty nice additions in the recent standards but all the backward compatibility is definitely a problem for the development of the language. C++ is basically a "do it all" language and it feels like newer languages have rather specific use cases which they excel in.

still_grokking 4y ago
> I don't think there will be many people left working __on__ C++ and its tooling in 10 years. I would also extrapolate this form how things look now. But in a sense the language has deliberately chosen that way. > C++ is basically a "do it all" language and it feels like newer languages have rather specific use cases which they excel in. Yes, I also see this. I'm not really happy with that as I think it's easier to learn one "real general purpose language" properly than have shallow knowledge in two dozens of glorified DSLs. But C++ isn't this language for me either. I personally would love to see Scala (v3) to become a better general purpose language. It's modern with a lightweight syntax, it's powerful (up to compile time verification of your code), it can embed all kinds of DSLs (which makes dedicated external DSLs superfluous), now it starts even to "run everywhere", but it's slow(er) and fat(er) compared to C++, Rust, and the other contenders in some very important areas, which sadly rules it out for many tasks.
- Shinmon 4y ago
  > But in a sense the language has deliberately chosen that way. Agreed, which is a pity but it is what it is. > But C++ isn't this language for me either. I personally would love to see Scala (v3) to become a better general purpose language. It's modern with a lightweight syntax, it's powerful (up to compile time verification of your code), it can embed all kinds of DSLs (which makes dedicated external DSLs superfluous), now it starts even to "run everywhere", but it's slow(er) and fat(er) compared to C++, Rust, and the other contenders in some very important areas, which sadly rules it out for many tasks. I have been doing C++ for the last 6 years now for scientific computing so safety wasn't the first priority, but chasing pointers while debugging is certainly no fun. Recently, I have been getting into Rust and I really like what I have seen so far, at least for my use cases.

still_grokking 4y ago

> I don't think there will be many people left working __on__ C++ and its tooling in 10 years. I would also extrapolate this form how things look now. But in a sense the language has deliberately chosen that way. > C++ is basically a "do it all" language and it feels like newer languages have rather specific use cases which they excel in. Yes, I also see this. I'm not really happy with that as I think it's easier to learn one "real general purpose language" properly than have shallow knowledge in two dozens of glorified DSLs. But C++ isn't this language for me either. I personally would love to see Scala (v3) to become a better general purpose language. It's modern with a lightweight syntax, it's powerful (up to compile time verification of your code), it can embed all kinds of DSLs (which makes dedicated external DSLs superfluous), now it starts even to "run everywhere", but it's slow(er) and fat(er) compared to C++, Rust, and the other contenders in some very important areas, which sadly rules it out for many tasks.

Shinmon 4y ago
> But in a sense the language has deliberately chosen that way. Agreed, which is a pity but it is what it is. > But C++ isn't this language for me either. I personally would love to see Scala (v3) to become a better general purpose language. It's modern with a lightweight syntax, it's powerful (up to compile time verification of your code), it can embed all kinds of DSLs (which makes dedicated external DSLs superfluous), now it starts even to "run everywhere", but it's slow(er) and fat(er) compared to C++, Rust, and the other contenders in some very important areas, which sadly rules it out for many tasks. I have been doing C++ for the last 6 years now for scientific computing so safety wasn't the first priority, but chasing pointers while debugging is certainly no fun. Recently, I have been getting into Rust and I really like what I have seen so far, at least for my use cases.