3 ms·
this feels defeatist c++ is with us for the near future, it needs an evolutionary path that provides a sane path forward why not break with the past? anyone n
by oldpersonintx 3y ago
this feels defeatist
c++ is with us for the near future, it needs an evolutionary path that provides a sane path forward
why not break with the past? anyone needing to compile c++11 can find the tools and still use them, they can live in the past as long as they like
just getting dependency/build management and integrated testing would be huge and really a small ask given what is happening in other tools
its crazy that you still can't make sane use of things like modules, even if you fully commit to "modern" c++
- pphysch 3y agoLack of modules support is the biggest thing keeping me from doing more c++ greenfield. So much friction in managing a pointless interface<->implementation layer.
- frfl 3y agoI'm not well versed in C++ best practices, but unless it's a non-option for your situation, have you considered single file headers or perhaps even a unity build[1] approach? Of course, both are just workarounds for proper module support and have their drawbacks and limitations. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_build https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_build
- u_name 3y agoYes! Proper modules support would give c++ a well needed boost (no pun intended!). msvc is kinda there, but it breaks here and there with intellisense.
- Night_Thastus 3y agoThis is the never-ending problem with programming languages. If you make big breaking changes, the community suffers - even if the changes are very well intentioned. Look at the long tail of Python 2 vs 3 issues. If it happens once it's not so bad, but the older the community and the greater the size of its existing ecosystem - the more that pain becomes. Rust, from what I've seen, understands this issue.