Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 1st Jun 2010 15:12 UTC
General Development "I am pleased to report that the GCC Steering Committee and the FSF have approved the use of C++ in GCC itself. Of course, there's no reason for us to use C++ features just because we can. The goal is a better compiler for users, not a C++ code base for its own sake. Before we start to actually use C++, we need to determine a set of coding standards that will apply to use of C++ within GCC."
Permalink for comment 427793
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

I'm with you in a lot of respects.

As a language which, at the same time, tries to be both object-oriented and a systems-language (setting aside the true multi-paradigm nature) there are unfortunately bound to be 'dark corners' where things are left unspecified.

Its also unfortunate that the syntax can be so unwieldy (Something closer to SPECS, at least as an option, would be very welcome IMO).

C++ is a complex language, certainly more "rules" are being added to satisfy C++ 0x, but many of the additions go a long way toward combating code complexity, and allowing code to be more concise yet more expressive (they seem to be learning a lot from functional languages, in spirit if not in implimentation).

'auto' eliminates a lot of redundant type specification, both inline and typedefs.

Lambdas and std::function eliminate the need for functor objects, and puts the code where it should be. (and is a decent substitute for the lack of local functions in C++).

The regex library means C++ users can largely standardize on the one library, rather than all the competing regex libraries that exist now.

C++ is definately a tough language to fully understand though -- and poorer coders only understand precisely the breadth and depth that they've needed to -- I've been at it for 6-7 years now, and actively study the new features, dark corners and pitfalls, but I'm only *just* approaching "expert" -- if I assume that there are at least two levels above expert: 'guru' those that can listen to your problem, then cite (or quote) the portion of the standard that explains it from memory, and "diety" those that shape the future of the language. At my level, I've got a pretty good intuition when things go wrong with the core language and familiar libraries and why it is they've done so, and in general I know when something smells fishy even if I've never dealt with a certain feature or aspect before.

Reply Parent Score: 2