Bjarne Stroustrup Previews C++0x

Szplug writes "Bjarne Stroustrup has a sneak peek at the additions to C++ that he expects will be completed (hopefully) by 2009. Included are language-defined threads, optional garbage collection, some automatic type deduction, and template concepts. From the article: 'The list of current proposals is still quite modest and not anywhere as ambitious as I'd like. However, more proposals are being considered and more libraries will appear either as part of the C++0x standard itself or as further committee technical reports.'"

Comments

More features - is that what C++ really needs?

[JackDW]

I'm a long-time fan of C and C++, but I've been converted to Python recently. Endlessly copying the C model is a bad idea. C++ did it, Perl did it, then Java copied C++, and all are perfectly servicable languages, but they are not clean, simple or pretty.

If we want to write complex and secure programs quickly, we need better languages, and more features does not mean better.

Re:What a name!

[swillden]

Now "C++0x"? How is that even pronounced? "See Plus Plus Zero Ecks"? Or maybe just "C...ocks"?

Actually, the correct pronunciation will be "See Plus Plus". The name of the language won't change, just as C is just called C, even though K&R C, C89 and C99 are quite different animals.

This has brought out the C++ haters

[MeridianOnTheLake]

This has really brought out the C++ haters. Still, most commercial applications, games, utilities, OS's, etc are still written in C++ (or a combination of C and C++). There is a reason for this; it is because C++ is both incredibly effective and extremely efficient. Sure, its possible to create artificial benchmarks that prove otherwise, but in te real world where performance counts, people use C++. But when they want flexibility they go for Ruby or Python or something similar. If you want outstanding applications, you use an outstanding language like C++. If you want average applications, you use an average language like Java.

Re:This has brought out the C++ haters

[MORB]

"And the guys who write those apps are the very ones who hate C++."

Not all of them. I've worked for 6 years as a game developer, and I've seen (and written myself) some pretty horrible stuff.
Yet I actually love C++ now, even though I hated it at first.

What I hate are people not thinking thing through before they code and hence writing monstruous code.
And most of these monstruosities are not C++ specific. A programmer who is not able to figure out what to put in a separate function or how to make a proper class hierarchy won't magically do better in Java, C#, Python or whatever else.

Re:2009?

[frantzdb]

I doubt Google, Adobe, or many of the thousands of other companies depening on C++ will be throwing their code base away any time soon. Rather, they will want their C++ code to be more robust and more managable. The features the article lists all seem to do this.

(See Stroustrup's C++ Applications page for more.)

Re:Worth it?

[Greyfox]

C++ is evolving via committee, so its growth tends to be both slow and seemingly ridiculously complex. Also usually for the better though. The last major change I recall seeing from them added templates and exceptions. Arguably neither was necessary for the language, but I think both additions helped it out. Since then folks like Alexandrescu have been doing nifty things with those features, and the boost library is based on a lot of that work. From what I can tell, the committee is actually looking at that work and are shaping C++ in a way that tries to help it in the future. Thats much better than having them go off and do their own thing without looking at what the community is doing.

C++ is a tremendously type safe language, to the point where every time I work with it I feel like about 90% of the work I do is in accounting for type. Most of that work is thrown away after the code has been compiled, too, but it does make for a rock solid program if you do it right. It seems to deliver on a lot of the promise of ADA, really. If they can improve access to its features without compromising that type safety, I'm all for it.