2011 THE YEAR OF THE ANONIX DESKTOP 2011 THE YEAR OF THE iPAD 2011 THE YEAR OF C++0xB 2011 THE YEAR OF LISP 2011 THE YEAR OF ASK FOR UOR QUESTION 2011 THE YEAR OF PYTHON ACTUALLY USEFUL 2011 THE YEAR OF HAX MY ANUS
Name:
Anonymous2011-01-19 19:51
Yep. About fucking time. Fixes most of the major problems I've had with the language. I've already been learning it from the latest draft specification, there's lots of new little and big things they've done to the language and standard libraries. It's also pretty promising that most major compiler vendors have been implementing C++0x features already.
I think it will be enough to see a continuation of C++ in use for large and high-performance systems and application development for at least the next decade. This will piss off the haters of course.
Also, they really fucking nailed the memory model on it, it's so fine grained that it should be able to accommodate all future massively parallel systems for quite some time.
>>3 2011 THE YEAR OF ASK FOR UOR QUESTIONOkay, I laughed.
Name:
Anonymous2011-01-19 20:44
>>6
That desire, whether it exists or not, does not equate to justification for "too many features." If anything Java has more features due to specific redundant implementations, but it looks like less because they're packaged into visible complementary structures (that any good programmer rebuilds or augments from more basic units anyway).
For the record, I love C++ but its feature kudzu is indefensible even when that growth lurch did provide something immensely useful.
What was the core mission statement for C++0x? what did they consider invaluable during work on it?
- Maintain stability and compatibility with C++98 and possibly with C;
- Prefer introduction of new features through the standard library, rather than extending the core language;
- Prefer changes that can evolve programming technique;
- Improve C++ to facilitate systems and library design, rather than to introduce new features only useful to specific applications;
- Increase type safety by providing safer alternatives to current, unsafe techniques;
- Increase performance and the ability to work directly with hardware;
- Provide proper solutions for real world problems;
- Implement “zero-overhead” principle (additional support required by some utilities must be used only if the utility is used)
>>5 Unfortunately it doesn't fix the problem where it has too many features.
C++ has too many features??
THIS IS THE MOST STUPIDEST TROLL EVER
All the syntax features on C++ are OPTIONAL, you dont have to use any of them. You compare that to Java that has just as much features as C++ but where you have to program using object orientation all the time, and so you have to use ALL the features all the time exactly how Java tells you to program at every step, its almost impossible to make an error the compiler wont catch because the language forces you to program in exactly one way. Compare that with C++ that will let you do anything with pointers, or change any feature because most the features are implemented in C++ itself.
>>5
You shouldn't use every obscure language feature like an aspie faggot, the Bjarne said so.
Name:
Anonymous2011-01-20 10:59
Object-oriented programming is a fad.
babby is digging is hole deeper, its almost impossible not to program using objects in C because structs are objects and pointers can point to functions. So you allocate structs with arrays full of pointers to functions and what do you have? Object orietation? I guess thats why the Linux kernel has a built in feature to create objects, its just following a FAD, right?
Name:
Anonymous2011-01-20 11:06
Every year is the year of Sepples if you're in the 3D game industry. But if pure functional programming delivers on it's promise of more efficient harvesting of multicore CPU cycles, that might not be the case anymore. Don't hold your breath, though.
Name:
Anonymous2011-01-20 11:14
>>20 change any feature because most the features are implemented in C++ itself.
I don't count those as features.
The single worst "new" feature of C++0x is Backwards Compatibility. I don't want two implementations of everything where one is broken and one is new, I want a language that forces me to do things the right way. I want C, and that's what I'll continue using.
Name:
Anonymous2011-01-20 11:24
I want a language that forces me to do things the right way
You should do things the right way regardless of the language paradigm. You know that, right?
Name:
Anonymous2011-01-20 11:46
>>24
You seem to think that the mess C++ and Java implement is actually an object-oriented system.
>>28
Well, it's a bondage & discipline version of object orientation. Which is about the only version you can get in a statically typed language with no type inference and that uses vtables as dynamic dispatch mechanism.
>>28 You seem to think that the mess C++ and Java implement is actually an object-oriented system.
I think that C is object oriented, the difference is that in C you have to implement all the boilerplate code to make object orientation work in a consistent way, whereas C++ provides an extension on top of C so you dont have to keep building everything from scratch. Java formalized object orientation as part of the compiler syntax and removed all low level control of indirection.
Name:
Anonymous2011-01-20 13:01
>>28 You seem to think that the mess C++ and Java implement is actually an object-oriented system.
as opposed to what? which language did OO right? Smalltalk? I like Smalltalk but would you make video games or device drivers with it? Objective C? Obj-C is an example of what happens when you bolt on Smalltalk style OO onto C, it does not extend C but adds a slower OO apart to it. Or you can just keep mallocing structs in C, have fun with that.
Name:
Anonymous2011-01-20 13:14
>>35
Yeah, Smalltalk did a pretty good job of it. Whether I'd write video games (sure, why not) or device drivers (it's been done, hasn't it) is irrelevant. C++ and Java don't even come close to doing it right, and neither does aping them in C.
>>36 C++ and Java don't even come close to doing it right, and neither does aping them in C
Their brand of OO is constrained as fuck, but that doesn't make it wrong. It's all a tradeoff for efficiency (especially in Sepples's case). If you need efficiency, it's great; if you don't, it sucks. Nevertheless, all OO elements are there: encapsulation, inheritance and polimorphism. I don't understand why people get so worked up over this kind of thing.