Recent slides by Stroustrup on C++0x: http://www.arcos.inf.uc3m.es/~jdaniel/sem-cpp-11/Madrid-bs.pdf
The Reddit thread: http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/gqwei/ The graph at page 20 (about list Vs vector) seems a bit too much good to be true. There is no link to the benchmarking code. This benchmark by Stroustrup is much worse than the ones I used to show here. >The primary value of a programming language is in the applications written in >it< The main value of certain languages, like Algol (or even Simula), was to lead the way and help the development of widely used languages. >Make C++ easier to teach and learn Through increased uniformity, stronger >guarantees, and facilities supportive of novices (there will always be more >novices than experts)< C++0x adds useful things, but it's more complex than C++, there is more stuff to learn. >C++0x [...] Every feature is implemented somewhere< Really? > Example: Strongly-typed enumerations > enum class Color { red, blue, green }; > int x = Color::red; // error: no Color->int conversion > Color y = 7; // error: no int->Color conversion > Color z = red; // error: red not in scope > Color c = Color::red; // fine Good. I'd like D2 to do something similar. ---------------------- The Stroustrup slides also cite (page 38) the JSF++ (C++) coding standard, that's interesting. I leave the discussion of those rules to another time, but in the meantime I have found a higher level description of this coding standard: http://www.ldra.com/nologindownload.asp?id=134 > Language Selection: C++ or Ada95? Ada95 has some problems, like less tools and compilers, but you don't want safety-critical software written in a language that has hundreds of known traps. This kind of programs are a small niche of the whole amount of programmers that may want to use D2, but I think it's good to take a look at what those people like or don't want from C++. > Ban features with behaviors that are not 100% predictable (from a performance > perspective) > Free store allocation (operators new and delete) > Exception handling (operator throw)< > C++ provides safer alternatives to many dangerous C constructs > E.g. polymorphism rather than switch statements< Maybe there are ways to improve D2 final switches further (like covering all 8 cases if the final switch is done on a n%8, or with class instances). > C-Style casts ==> C++-style casts > JSF++ strongly encourages elimination of casts > AV Rule 48: Identifiers will not differ by: > - Only a mixture of case > - The presence/absence of the underscore character > - The interchange of the letter O, with the number 0 or the letter D > - The interchange of the letter I, with the number 1 or the letter l > - The interchange of the letter S with the number 5 > - The interchange of the letter Z with the number 2 > - The interchange of the letter n with the letter h. > Rationale: Readability. This is interesting, and seems good. > prohibit dependence on evaluation order and side-effects. > manage memory layout issues (unions, bit-fields, casts, etc.) > address overflow issues > prohibit mixed-mode arithmetic and comparisons Good. > Public and protected data should only be used in structs -- not classes. > AV Rule 101: Templates shall be reviewed as follows: > 1. with respect to the template in isolation considering assumptions or > requirements placed on its arguments. > 2. with respect to all functions instantiated by actual arguments. > Note: The compiler should be configured to generate the list of actual > template instantiations. > Rationale: Since many instantiations of a template can be generated, any > review should consider all actual instantiations as well as any assumptions > or requirements placed on arguments of instantiations. In DMD there is no switch to see a list of actual template instantiations. > Where possible tools will be used to automate coding standard enforcement. A first good tool to avoid similar bugs is the compiler itself. Bye, bearophile
