Slashdot Mirror
Interview Update With Bjarne Stroustrup On C++0x
An anonymous reader writes "DevX interviewed Bjarne Stroustrup about C++0x, the new C++ standard that is due in 2009. Bjarne Stroustrup has classified the new features into three categories: Concurrency, Libraries and Language. The changes introduced in Concurrency makes C++ more standardized and easy to use on multi-core processors. It is good to see that some of the commonly used libraries are becoming standard (eg: unordered_maps and regex)."
Yes. It's already been done once, aka C99. This isn't the thing that will replace C++, it's the next revision of the language, with multithreading support etc. Once C++ has worked out the hard stuff, C will have it's own next revision based on that.
Once everything's finished, it should be finalized as C++09. It may carry on another year, in which case you might call it "C++0xa" ;)
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
Objective-C is essentially unrelated to C++ in every way. C++0x does not change this fact at all. Comparing the two makes just slightly more sense than comparing C++ and Prolog.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
And when it does, it's trivial to go in and write the speed-sensitive portions of the program in a faster language.
Agreed. Premature optimization is the root of all evil. Write the control flow in a high-level, easy-to-debug language, and later optimize the pieces running unacceptably slow by rewriting them in C. No object-oriented language with legacy holdovers, static typing, and gross syntax needed.
Despite knowing it is a fallacy, I will instruct by appealing to my experience: 27 years coding, 10 of that with a salary, and 5 years before that as an entrepreneur. I have forgotten more C++ than most people know, having written everything from a reference-counting garbage collector to an entire content management system in it... and with the benefit of 7 years of professional C++ development, I can say with a straight face that it is the wrong tool for every job.
[ home ]
http://yosefk.com/c++fqa/ - this site says it all.
And it's also being argumentative and verbose at that, unlike your routine 'C++ sucks' rant.
No it's not. The standard does not define concurrency issues. Not how to spawn threads and create mutexes, but lower-level issues, like coherency. This is sorely needed for truly portable code. Rvalue references will help a lot with the creation of temporaries that are just copied and destroyed. You see this now in all the specializations in the libraries for the swap function. With rvalue references, you can write a single template that will be optimal for all types. Currently template error messages are a mess. several lines of unreadable garbage because your type doesn't supply a member or operator that the template needs. Concepts will lead to concise, easy to understand error messages. typedecl and the new use for the auto keyword will reduce verbosity, and stop the nightmare that is figuring out the type of a complex template (i.e., when using Spirit, et. al.). Lambdas and closures will simplify using the STL algorithms without having to create a lot of functors. REH
Anonymous Cowards suck.
Not sure how long ago I first heard that, and it's still as true today as it was back in '95. I think I first heard it from Greg Anderson, of Anderson Financial Systems (one of the old-time NeXT development shops.)
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
You surely are a careless coder, then. C/C++'s memory/pointer-related problems are due to careless/clueless programmers, not due to the language itself. You clearly fail to understand the language, yet pretend to answer with authority. Do you use (or even know) the RAII idiom? that smart pointers have been there for years? Yes, I mean auto_ptr and shared_ptr. How about the Boost library (which is being included partly in C++0x). Garbage Collectors are non-deterministic by nature; Therefore, they are a real no-no for real projects (think real-time systems or massive number crunching, where memory pools are common).
Yes, if C++ included the same libraries that Python does, this objection would go away. (Why wouldn't it?) The other objections would remain.
And no, GC does stop you from having to think about memory management. So-called "soft leaks" aren't a memory management problem, they're just a regular old code bug. GC doesn't save you from all bugs, or even from a particularly large number of them. It mainly just saves you from programming overhead.
GC also doesn't save you from having to manage external resources as that SafeHandle class does.
RAII is definitely not the design pattern I want. Believe me, I know what RAII is, and I know what I want, and the two do not intersect in any way.
I know it's hard to believe, but there are people out there who legitimately do not like C++. Not because we're stupid, or clueless, or because we've been misled, but simply because we have different constraints on our programming or even just different opinions.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.