6 ms·
None of deficiencies have been corrected. Just are added tons and tons of new features, leaving the old-cruft there.
by mamcx 12y ago
None of deficiencies have been corrected. Just are added tons and tons of new features, leaving the old-cruft there.
- AnimalMuppet 12y agoThe article called out specific things as being deficiencies in C++. It cited a lack of a Boolean type. Now C++ has bool. It cited lack of modules (name spaces). C++ now has this. It cited the lack of run-time type information. C++ now has RTTI. But it sounds like you have a different list of "deficiencies" than the article...
- the_why_of_y 12y agoIn what bizarro world do C++ namespaces qualify as modules? There are rumors that Apple's clang developers are working on something in that direction, but until that vaporware is done and standardized, C++ programmers have to use the C preprocessor's automated text copy-and-paste mechanism in lieu of a proper module system. Edited to add: an article and video about the clang C++ modules work-in-progress http://isocpp.org/blog/2012/11/modules-update-on-work-in-progress-doug-gregor http://isocpp.org/blog/2012/11/modules-update-on-work-in-pro...
- AnimalMuppet 12y agoThe article said that (Oberon) modules and C++ namespaces were similar features. You may have a different definition of modules, or you may think that the article is wrong to compare the two. That's fine. But I'm just the messenger here; go shoot somebody else.