- "C++ proposal dismisses backward compatibility" - 11 Updates
- Help needed - 2 Updates
| "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>: Apr 06 05:16PM -0700 On 4/6/2020 10:41 AM, Lynn McGuire wrote: > "Proposal to the C++ standards committee would give up backward and > binary compatibility for safety and simplicity" > Lynn Well... shi%. Bust out the legacy code that worked fine, then figure out how its ruined. |
| "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>: Apr 06 05:16PM -0700 On 4/6/2020 12:32 PM, alelvb wrote: >> down that path, they might as well define it strongly and give it a >> new name. C3? > I'd propose C³ - C cubed ; ) :^D Nice. |
| "ΓΓΆ Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Apr 06 08:26PM -0700 On Monday, 6 April 2020 20:41:40 UTC+3, Lynn McGuire wrote: > "Proposal to the C++ standards committee would give up backward and > binary compatibility for safety and simplicity" > Lynn The article from April 2 and the "proposal" it refers from March 2 <http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2020/p2137r0.html> are both philosophical political. There are zero actual technical facts. Such should be dismissed as usual political brainwash since actual changes are not proposed and so it is impossible to judge if it is aiming for improvements or for even more deterioration of C++. |
| Marcel Mueller <news.5.maazl@spamgourmet.org>: Apr 07 05:58AM +0200 Am 06.04.20 um 21:44 schrieb alelvb: >> Yes. C++ is used because of it's backwards compatibility. Changing code >> costs time and money... > ...and the rewriting of many tools and libraries This will not happen (excluding some exceptions). No one ever pays for no business value. And no open source programmer spends time just for nothing. And every new platform which did not start with a reasonable large base of usable software is a stillbirth. Remember D (and several other languages), Win Phone, dozens of Raspberry Pi replacements, non x86 compatible CPUs. Successful incompatible platforms require a promoter who pays for years for the development of the software ecosystem. In contrast totally antiquated platforms like COBOL are still alive. Or remember SAP (ABAP). One of their success factors is the language compatibility. Code of the 90's still run on their platform with minimal changes. Marcel |
| Marcel Mueller <news.5.maazl@spamgourmet.org>: Apr 07 06:07AM +0200 Am 06.04.20 um 19:41 schrieb Lynn McGuire: > https://www.infoworld.com/article/3535795/c-plus-plus-proposal-dismisses-backward-compatibility.html > "Proposal to the C++ standards committee would give up backward and > binary compatibility for safety and simplicity" This would be another new language which (almost) no one uses unless some other one pays him for years to do so. It's like reinvention of the wheel. The value of a programming company (or a community project) is the code base. Whatever breaks the compatibility decreases this value. There are a few business cases where compatibility is not an issue or even not wanted. But this applies only to very large companies and near-monopoly. They can exclude competitors this way. Marcel |
| Marcel Mueller <news.5.maazl@spamgourmet.org>: Apr 07 06:09AM +0200 Am 06.04.20 um 20:13 schrieb Melzzzzz: >> binary compatibility for safety and simplicity" > Bad idea. C++ will be then like languages who break old code every now > and then. Not for professionals... Full ack. A fork of the language will be the consequence. Marcel |
| Cholo Lennon <chololennon@hotmail.com>: Apr 07 01:13AM -0300 On 4/6/20 2:41 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote: > https://www.infoworld.com/article/3535795/c-plus-plus-proposal-dismisses-backward-compatibility.html > "Proposal to the C++ standards committee would give up backward and > binary compatibility for safety and simplicity" I'd like to see a new C++ without backward compatibility, but I know that this is a key feature, but at the same time a huge pain in the neck. And we already have several examples about breaking the backward compatibility like Python2 vs Python3. I don't want to be in the middle of that kind of scenario. The referenced paper is very interesting BTW. -- Cholo Lennon Bs.As. ARG |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Apr 07 08:35AM +0200 On 06/04/2020 21:32, alelvb wrote: >> new name. C3? > I'd propose C³ - C cubed ; ) > cheers Surely C+=2 would be the natural choice? |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Apr 07 10:28AM +0200 On 06/04/2020 19:41, Lynn McGuire wrote: > "Proposal to the C++ standards committee would give up backward and > binary compatibility for safety and simplicity" > Lynn (Disclaimer - I haven't read the link in detail.) Given that new languages come and go all the time, a new C++ would not be unreasonable - /if/ it is a fork with a new name and does not hinder existing C++. The best idea would be if it were a subset of C++. C++ has a great deal of historical baggage that can't be dropped because of backward compatibility, but which is not necessary. For example, you could re-do a fair amount of the fundamental types and give a simpler and safer language. Drop the dog's breakfast of character types and integer types, and retain "std::byte", "char8_t", "char32_t", "intXX_t" and "uintXX_t". Make it an error to combine signed and unsigned integers in most expressions without an explicit conversion. Requite 8-bit std::byte. Raw pointers could be banned unless a "#pragma unsafe" was in effect. Code written to this new subset would still compile correctly on standard C++ compilers. I'm sure this would be possible - but far from easy. |
| Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk>: Apr 07 12:20PM +0100 On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 12:41:28 -0500 > https://www.infoworld.com/article/3535795/c-plus-plus-proposal-dismisses-backward-compatibility.html > "Proposal to the C++ standards committee would give up backward and > binary compatibility for safety and simplicity" It seems to me like a great idea. It would enable those on the standard committee and working groups who have an irresistable urge to mess around with the language (aka "have great new ideas and features") will have something new to play with and thus leave the actual C++ language to practising programmers. Then maybe there could be a moratorium on all changes for, say, 10 years except to iron out plain deficiencies or which have provably no known adverse impact on code actually out there, unless the benefits of the change are so substantial as to be worth the additional turbulence. Concepts may have fallen within this latter rubric. The fact that the standard actually mandates that some of its support library must have undefined behaviour (I am thinking std::uninitialized_copy here, but it seems probable there are others) means that the standard is already so unwieldy that even the standard committee cannot hold all of it in their heads at the same time. The new language will be no more successful than D and almost certainly a lot less successful than Rust. That's fine. |
| Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com>: Apr 07 02:35PM -0500 On 4/6/2020 11:07 PM, Marcel Mueller wrote: > even not wanted. But this applies only to very large companies and > near-monopoly. They can exclude competitors this way. > Marcel It does kinda sound like Go. Lynn |
| Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid>: Apr 07 06:33AM > Contrary to what you suggest, I've had a brilliant response from someone who has done a very thorough review and updating of my SP71 C++ program. I could not have asked for more. So you got someone to do your work for you, for free. Congratulations. I wish I could have someone do my work for me, for free. |
| Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se>: Apr 07 10:39AM On Tue, 2020-04-07, Juha Nieminen wrote: >> C++ program. I could not have asked for more. > So you got someone to do your work for you, for free. Congratulations. > I wish I could have someone do my work for me, for free. There's no reason for a sarcastic response. GW was responsing to someone being rude and he handled that very well IMO. /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o . |
| 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. |
No comments:
Post a Comment