Stroustrup Says New C++ Standard Delayed Until 2010 Or Later

wandazulu writes "At the end of an article written by the creator of C++, where he talks about removing a feature from the new C++ standard, he drops a bombshell: The new C++ standard (typically referred to as C++0x) has been delayed until 2010 or later. What does this mean? No new C++ features like threads, proper enum classes, or hash tables. C++0x is dead, long live C++1x!"

Comments

Re:And nothing of value was lost

[Stele]

I think bigger problems are C++'s complexity, the presence of pointers, the use of include files, and the lack of garbage collection.

Funny - I see all of those things as advantages.

Re:How about a REAL C++ feature....

[squoozer]

Back in the day they used to have little children crawling around under cotton stipping machines. The children were needed to pick up fluff and other debris that would cause the machine to break the thread it was working on. Some children would get crushed in the machine because they weren't fast enough to get out of the way etc.

C++ is a bit like that machine. It works fine if you have the luxury of being able to pick only the fastest most able children but there comes a time when you need to grow your business beyond the limits of what the best can achieve. At that point you need to either accept that some of the less able children will get crushed (bugs in the code) or you need to make the machine safer. It's often cheaper and simpler to make the machine safer and hopefully those most able children will then be able to perform more complex and hopefully profitable work.

To paraphrase... everytime you argue for a language without safety features god kills a child.