Digest for comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com - 2 updates in 1 topic

comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

Topic digest
View all topics

• The effectiveness of C++14 - 2 Updates

The effectiveness of C++14

"Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Jan 06 04:37PM -0800 On Tuesday, January 6, 2015 11:28:25 PM UTC+2, Scott Lurndal wrote: > >> upgraded, but not as fast as some might like.   > >Yes but "Stick to C++98" sounds fully stagnant.   > How so? gcc 4.4.7 (on our build cluster systems) dates to 2012.   4.4 has decent amount of c++11 support.   > There is nothing wrong with C with classes paradigms or C++98 > paradigms or C++11 paradigms or whatever. Nothing. They are > perfectly acceptable paradigms for modern application development.   For example the C++98 tricks to achieve the move semantics were rather complex. See that: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/More_C++_Idioms/Move_Constructor And that: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/More_C++_Idioms/Temporary_Base_Class It indeed does work once made and tested but I don't see why someone should do something like that instead of using C++11 move semantics in *new* code. Just for sake of "Stick to C++98"?     > Why should I make pointless changes to a working 5, 10 or 15-year old > application just because someone thought adding a new feature to a > mature language was a good idea?   Why can not old module written in C-with-classes live well together with new module written in C++11? I merely suggest to take the new features and idioms into use in new code written.   > validation time to change a half-million line application from using > raw pointers to using std::unique_ptr - it buys nothing, zero for the > product nor for my employer.   Yes. Whatever changes, (including outright bug-fixes) do cause new defects as rule. I do not suggest to make changes just for sake of changing.

scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal): Jan 07 02:54PM >> 39 years, in my case.   >39 years? That explains your intransigent stubbornness then. Old dog >new tricks innit.   Actually, "old dog" and "experience" are probably closer. I've no problem using learning new tricks when necessary. Change for the sake of change isn't a new trick, just a waste of time.   (started programming at 14 on a B5500, so not so old, either :-).

Back to top

You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.lang.c+++unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.