On Tuesday, 27 February 2018 at 20:33:18 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Tuesday, February 27, 2018 17:33:52 12345swordy via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Tuesday, 27 February 2018 at 15:52:15 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu
wrote:
> https://isocpp.org/blog/2018/02/new-cpp-foundation-developer-survey-lite
-2018-02
>
> Andrei
I have submitted, already. My major complaints boils down to
the fact that they refuse to deprecated features due to
religious like devotions to backwards compatibility support.
The main problem with that is that the fact that as soon as
you're willing to break backwards compatability in C++, then
you lose one of the major benefits of C++ (that the same code
compiles pretty much forever) and that if you're willing to
give up on that, you might as well be using another language
like D or Rust. I'm sure that there's a crowd who would love to
break some aspects of backwards compatability with C++ and
stick with it rather than switching to another language, but if
someone actually really tried to fix C++, you wouldn't end up
with C++ anymore. You might not end up with D or Rust, but it
would definitely be a new language, and if you're willing to do
that, why stick with C++?
The other problem is that many of C++'s problems come from
being a superset of C, which is also a huge strength, and it
would be a pretty huge blow to C++ if it couldn't just #include
C code and use it as if it were C++. To truly fix C++ while
retaining many of its strengths would require fixing C as well,
and that's not happening.
- Jonathan M Davis
Yes I know that backwards compatibility comes with benefits, but
gosh darn it, it doesn't stop me from complaining about it. Even
more so it's very popular language to develop video games on it.
