5 ms·
I hope circle is the thing that makes the committee realise there is an alternative to their attitude of 'we're not versioning files, we're not giving you opt-i
by DrBazza 4y ago
I hope circle is the thing that makes the committee realise there is an alternative to their attitude of 'we're not versioning files, we're not giving you opt-in features, we're not giving you new keywords, we're not fixing demonstrably bad and wrong behavior'. But I doubt it. I've been in and out of C++ for over 20 years, and every time I'm 'back', it's the same old tired story.
I'm more interested in Val than the rest, but, Val isn't really a C++ replacement (in terms of syntax, at least), it's a language that offers C++ interop. To quote an old joke 'How do you get to Dublin? Well, firstly, I wouldn't start here'. I'm not sure whether any new language in 2023 should start with C++ interop as one of its main goals.
- tialaramex 4y ago> we're not giving you new keywords Since when? Last time I looked C++ had almost a hundred keywords. C++ 20 added a bunch including "requires" and "concept" - both ordinary English words which oops, too bad now your software is incompatible because it used the wrong identifier.
- steveklabnik 4y agoI suspect they're talking about co_*
- zturner 4y agoIt’s extremely difficult to get new keywords into the language. This is a very large part of the reason we can only have new functionality in the library.
- 112233 4y agoIt does look highly doubtful. On the one hand, there are things like 10'000 and 1_blah notation that obvoiusly breaks backwards everything, plus completely novel mini languages, like the stuff inside lambda []. On the two hand, there is the overpowering insistence on the c++ abstract machine with its lifetimes that has resulted in monsters like bit_cast, and has no resemblance to actual hardware, living or deceased. So the feeling is more of an ideology driven developement than any practical considerations