Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


+ - An Interview with C++ Creator Bjarne Stroustrup-> 2

Submitted by DevTool
DevTool (1667057) writes "Bjarne Stroustrup talks about the imminent C++0x standard and the forthcoming features it brings, the difficulties of standardizing programming languages in general, the calculated risks that the standards committee can afford to take with new features, and even his own New Year's resolutions."
Link to Original Source
This discussion was created for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

An Interview with C++ Creator Bjarne Stroustrup

Comments Filter:
  • Yes, DIE. And I say this as someone who makes a living programming in it. You can do anything you want in it, but nothing complex can be done both clearly and efficiently. The standard idiom for looping through a vector of integers is

    std::vector my_vec;
    for (std::vector::iterator iter = my_vec.begin(); iter != myvec.end(); ++iter) { ...

    Ick. And I know that C++0x actually cleans up that case. There's still plenty of ugliness.

    • by toolslive (953869)

      you have my vote.

      Just compare
      - templates in C++0x to the polymorphism available in haskell or ocaml.
      - auto in C++0x to type inference in C#, ocaml, haskell, ....
      - lambda's in C++0x to the real thing in functional programing languages,...

      C++0x is just more pain.

      Come to think of it, a simple death is not brutal enough considered the pain C++ caused me.

Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it.