Slashdot Mirror
Standard C++ Moves Beyond Vapor
An Anonymous Coward++ writes "This google thread announces the first C++ compiler that can actually handle the whole language (we'd been waiting for half a decade here). The company that did it is EDG. They're a tiny outfit, but they're apparently also behind the Intel compiler (both on Windows with Visual C++ extensions, and on Linux with GCC extensions). There are rumors they can compile the Linux kernel too."
If so, where can I go to find out what GCC is missing?
(I had to write this three times because of that damn 20 second after reply widget. Thanks, trolls.)
StoneCypher is Full of BS
So up until now all compilers have been incomplete? What insanely great features have had to be left out because of this? I'm not a developer, so I'm more than a little ignorant. Mainly I'm just wondering if this will allow fewer lines in the same code, shorter compile times, etc...
Shift happens. Fire it up.
Unless a few of the unimplemented language features have uses that nobody has thought of (not entirely unlikely since this is the first compiler I know of that supports all of them), I doubt it will make a huge difference for most coders. C++ programmers have gotten along fine without them thus far.
However, it is nice to see that they have made it in. Maybe now other groups will start imlementing the full language, too.
.... Now all we need is a language whose syntax makes sense! ....
Which is the exact reason I've moved pretty much completely to Objective-C. After cursing C++ for years, I've finally found peace with a C-like, object-oriented language that makes sense. I learned Obj-C when I was getting familiar with OS X development, and I haven't used C++ on anything since, on any platform. Obviously, I still have to maintain plenty of C++ code, but as time goes on, that amount will become less and less and eventually, I'll be rid of C++ forever!
Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;
Sun is constantly talking about protecting the Java language for the sake of humanity. I find it rather amusing, by comparison, that C++ is so out there in the open that it took 5 years to actually get a complete implementation of it. Evidence that such tight controls aren't necessary to make a language stable and long lasting?
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
I've lost count of the number of times companies have claimed to be "standards compliant" only for this to turn out not to be the case when close scrutiny is applied to the product.
A USENET thread claiming that a product is standards complaint has 0 credibility in my book regardless of who stated it. On the other hand passing the C/C++ User Journal's compiler roundup's set of conformance tests from Dinkumware, Perennial and Plum Hall with flying colors is worthy of comment.
That said, EDG has long been producing the best C++ language compiler in the industry and if anyone could have achieved this I'd expect it to be them. However, running a front page story on Slashdot based on a USENET post lacks editorial judgement.
compiles under the g++ 2.x series, but not g++ 3)
Then:
a) It's not ISO C++ compliant code: you should sell them, or throw them out, or burn them, or something.
or
b) It's a regression in GCC. In which case you should report it to the GCC team. They are very concerned with regressions, and work hard to make them go away (the release of 3.1 is currently blocked on a small handful of regressions)
Given that it's a textbook, and textbook code is usually pretty trivial, I'm leaning highly towards (a) as the correct answer.
ISO C++ broke a lot of old (pre-Standard) C++ code. Them's the breaks. But I've written a ~18K line C++ program (using modern features like the STL, dynamic_cast, etc) that runs on egcs 1.1.2 up to gcc 3.0.4, and over half a dozen commercial compilers, including VC7. Portability is entirely possible, it just needs some care, just like it does with C or Perl.
Dude! You totally ripped that off from an earlier comment attached to this story!
Wow, good use of plagarism!
I am not in any way a C++ programmer. The only thing I've ever read my way through is the Bruce Eckel's book. That was enough for me. I know some Java and C and was starting to learn how to go further on Mac OSX (which uses GCC) and was wondering whether to go with C++ or ObjC. One little trial programme in both and I went with ObjC. It *is* a lot easier, especially if you know some Java and has similar dynamic features. I don't know enough to comment on whther C++ is faster or not but it defintely has a very difficult syntax for beginners.
Although I agree with the OSS crowd that Java should also be opensourced, it is at least a standard and this is a godsend for someone learning the language. In C++ the problem with learning it is whose version do you learn? Microsoft's? GCC? What are the fine points of symantic differences inbetween the differing versions? ObjC has this problem as well but since it's only heavily used on OSx at the moment it is not so critical, but if GNUStep were to more successful for instance there might arise differnces there as well (infighting over GCC ObjC compilation with Apple etc). I personally wish for more standards in these heavily used languages although I don't suppose it'll happen anytime soon.
Ada95 has had fully compliant compilers(plural) since at least 1995.(When it was Internationally standardized.)
Java has at least a coherent standard. And Common Lisp has been there for almost 20 years now.
It's funny to watch the members of the C/C++ Gestapo wet thier pants over this. I bet Bjorne is doing a double-take right about now.
Care to elaborate which VERSION of VC++ they tested? I don't get DDJ, and if they're still banging on VC6 that's not very interesting. If MS haven't fixed the conformance problems in VC++.NET it'd be handy to know.
foo = (bar)-7;
You can't tell if that's a cast of a negative integer to type "bar" or a subtraction of 7 from variable "bar" unless you know whether "bar" is a typedef name or not.
But C++ has significantly worse parsing problems.
Peter