Re: Interesting talk about language design and evolution
On Saturday, 24 September 2016 at 18:11:25 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote: On Saturday, 24 September 2016 at 03:39:00 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: A somewhat lengthy but very interesting talk about the tradeoffs for language design and evolution. [CppCon 2016: Bjarne Stroustrup "The Evolution of C++ Past, Present and Future"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wzc7a3McOs) In particular the part about direction https://youtu.be/_wzc7a3McOs?t=51m29s, and the section about tradeoffs for new features https://youtu.be/_wzc7a3McOs?t=30m16s. Relevant is this list of C++17 features (many of which already work in popular compilers). http://stackoverflow.com/a/38060437/216300 Well if you follow the argumentation of the talk, they are not relevant, none of them are enabling features, most are syntax sugar. I've got to admit, the D side of me is jealous of a few things on this list. Comparing pointless feature lists really isn't that interesting, but figuring out how to do relevant features is. Structured bindings Somewhat undecided about this. Better support for multiple return values would be nice, but tuple fixes most of the needs. Kenji's full tuple proposal also included pattern matching, but is that more than a functional programming abbreviation of if-else? init ifs (one of those "why did it take so long to come up with this?" ideas) We removed those from D, didn't we? stackless coroutines look nice too. They aren't, but they are indeed nice, and we should consider some async/await support for D as well. For I/O bound stuff Fibers are performant/resource-friendly enough though. Cheap coroutines can efficiently connect ranges with trees, very nice
Re: Interesting talk about language design and evolution
On 09/24/2016 02:11 PM, Brad Anderson wrote: Relevant is this list of C++17 features (many of which already work in popular compilers). http://stackoverflow.com/a/38060437/216300 I've got to admit, the D side of me is jealous of a few things on this list. Structured bindings, init ifs (one of those "why did it take so long to come up with this?" ideas), and constructor IFTI. Not sure if it's in C++17 yet but the stackless coroutines look nice too. The baby steps toward CTFE are welcome, of course. It appears C++ still has a long way to go though. Every time I go back and look at it, C++'s evolution just seems more and more like "Let's do a poor imitation of D, without really admitting it, and without doing the real fundamental cleanups that D did and C++ still desperately needs." All the work that's gone into C++ the past decade...if even half of that had been directed into D instead, then years ago they would have already been far ahead of where they are now. But they just keep building more and more on top their busted foundation. C++ was already kind of a monster of a language during the period I was using it most (late 90's, early 2000's). Instead of improving my opinion of it, all of this new stuff from C++11 onward merely makes me even more terrified of ever going near it again, because all it does is add more cruft when "too much cruft" was already its biggest problem to begin with. I don't care if the political correctness wind IS blowing against it - I *still* think D's biggest strength is that it's "C++ done right". That's what drew me to D in the first place, and that's what keeps me here. About the "if inits": Those do seem take make a lot of sense, I've hit cases where it could be used, and I have zero objection to it...but it still seems incredibly minor to me, and it just strikes me as "really, C++, you have *far* better things to be focusing on then adding yet more syntax, just for minor benefit". Like, oh, I don't know, modules maybe? Compiling in under a day? And fixing up that goofy ".cpp vs .hpp" system where so many people honestly believe it's "implementation vs interface", but if you really look at it you find the *genuine* truth of "what goes in which file" is really far, FAR more random than that. Seriously, last time I used C++, I was amazed: It is INSANE how much of a load of BS the conventional wisdom is about header files being "interface" - there is a TON of implementation shit that must be in the so-called header. May have been true in C (if you ignore macros), but definitely not in C++.
Re: Interesting talk about language design and evolution
On 9/24/2016 11:11 AM, Brad Anderson wrote: Relevant is this list of C++17 features http://stackoverflow.com/a/38060437/216300 Finally has hex floating point literals! > (many of which already work in popular > compilers). Digital Mars C++ has had hex floating point literals since about 1992. (Didn't invent them, they were first proposed by the NCEG (Numerical C Extensions Group of which I was a member.)
Re: Interesting talk about language design and evolution
On Saturday, 24 September 2016 at 03:39:00 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: A somewhat lengthy but very interesting talk about the tradeoffs for language design and evolution. [CppCon 2016: Bjarne Stroustrup "The Evolution of C++ Past, Present and Future"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wzc7a3McOs) In particular the part about direction https://youtu.be/_wzc7a3McOs?t=51m29s, and the section about tradeoffs for new features https://youtu.be/_wzc7a3McOs?t=30m16s. Relevant is this list of C++17 features (many of which already work in popular compilers). http://stackoverflow.com/a/38060437/216300 I've got to admit, the D side of me is jealous of a few things on this list. Structured bindings, init ifs (one of those "why did it take so long to come up with this?" ideas), and constructor IFTI. Not sure if it's in C++17 yet but the stackless coroutines look nice too. The baby steps toward CTFE are welcome, of course. It appears C++ still has a long way to go though.
Interesting talk about language design and evolution
A somewhat lengthy but very interesting talk about the tradeoffs for language design and evolution. [CppCon 2016: Bjarne Stroustrup "The Evolution of C++ Past, Present and Future"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wzc7a3McOs) In particular the part about direction https://youtu.be/_wzc7a3McOs?t=51m29s, and the section about tradeoffs for new features https://youtu.be/_wzc7a3McOs?t=30m16s.
