Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Programming Software Upgrades

C++14 Is Set In Stone 193

Posted by timothy
from the but-it's-a-soft-stone dept.
jones_supa (887896) writes "Apart from minor editorial tweaks, the ISO C++14 standard can be considered completed. Implementations are already shipping by major suppliers. C++14 is mostly an incremental update over C++11 with some new features like function return type deduction, variable templates, binary literals, generic lambdas, and so on. The official C++14 specification release will arrive later in the year, but for now Wikipedia serves as a good overview of the feature set."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

C++14 Is Set In Stone

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Oh god so what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by geekoid (135745) <dadinportland AT yahoo DOT com> on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @11:00AM (#47703925) Homepage Journal

    COBOL is an excellent language for hat it was designed for. I can only assume your hate comes from ignorance.

    It seems to me, your hate would be better directed at poor engineering and software engineering standards then the tools.

  • Re:Oh god so what? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @11:07AM (#47703989)

    Any individual can choose a usable subset of a complex system. The problem is that each individual chooses a different subset.

    So in the real world, you have to understand nearly all of it in order to be able to maintain other people's code or to work as a team.

    I've been writing C++ since around 1990, when the idea of an STL was being bounced desperately around by Musser and Stepanov. Back then, C++ was a genuinely simple enough language to implement in - nobody pretended that it was anything more than a C compiler preprocessor, which is mostly what it still is, with a little bit of runtime support, but there's just so much of it.

  • by Tough Love (215404) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @11:20AM (#47704127)

    It's just pathetic that so many years down the road the committee can't get its act together to provide this much loved C99 feature at least for POD. This is a major issue, if not the major issue) with porting C code. The word wanking comes to mind. Here, GCC guys really need to take the lead but it's starting to feel like GCC guys are actually holding back on it. It's not like the coding is a challenge.

  • Re:Oh god so what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fnj (64210) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @11:59AM (#47704455)

    Err, the implication is that you can also write C++ that is not guaranteed to be maintainable by anybody short of a complete master, which even Bjarne says he is not. I think it is fair to estimate that the number of complete C++ masters in the world is in the single to double digits; no more. It may be you can identify another programming language for which that holds true. I don't think I can.

    Other successful computer languages do not have that problem. Any competent C programmer can maintain any C code, and the same for python and Java. Perl is arguable; the problem is not complexity but opaqueness.

  • Re:Oh god so what? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TechyImmigrant (175943) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @12:13PM (#47704581) Journal

    > Integer overflow has absolutely nothing to do with security.

    Yes it does. I take it you don't write much crypto code?

The tree of research must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of bean counters. -- Alan Kay

Working...