The New C++: Lay Down Your Guns, Knives, and Clubs
Linked by Hadrien Grasland on Wed 15th Jun 2011 07:32 UTC, submitted by ebasconp
General Development "The recently finished C++ ISO standard, with the working name of C++0x, is due to be published this summer, following the finishing touches to the ISO spec language and standards wonks agreed upon in March."
E-mail Print r 2   94 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/j6b
Thread beginning with comment 477276
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Basically, awesome
by ebasconp on Wed 15th Jun 2011 15:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Basically, awesome"
ebasconp
Member since:
2006-05-09

I too would like to see a much simplified C++ design, instead of even more features added with few things removed.


A lot of features have been added having simplicity as main feature; for example: "auto" and "range-based" for.

For example, to show all items in a vector, in current ISO C++ you need to do something like:

template <typename T>
void show(const vector<T>& v)
{
for (typename vector<T>::const_iterator i =
v.begin(); i != v.end(); i++)
cout << *i << endl;
}

In the new C++0x you can do also this stuff:

template <typename T>
void show(const vector<T>& v)
{
for (auto i = v.begin(); i != v.end(); i++)
cout << *i << endl;
}

or using the range-based loop:

template <typename T>
void show(const vector<T>& v)
{
for (auto& x : v)
cout << i << endl;
}

IMHO, simple, beautiful and powerful because they are new features, but they add simplicity too.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Basically, awesome
by Neolander on Wed 15th Jun 2011 15:33 in reply to "RE[3]: Basically, awesome"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

While you can totally see it from this point of view, I see it myself at something which makes C++ compilers more difficult to implement, and as such probably less efficient in each individual area ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Basically, awesome
by Veto on Thu 16th Jun 2011 09:53 in reply to "RE[3]: Basically, awesome"
Veto Member since:
2010-11-13

for (auto i = v.begin(); i != v.end(); i++)


In the educative example above, you should really use ++i instead of i++. This may seem like nitpicking, but there is a significant performance difference. When using i++, the compiler will have to invoke the copy constructor at each iteration.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Basically, awesome
by dnebdal on Thu 16th Jun 2011 10:01 in reply to "RE[4]: Basically, awesome"
dnebdal Member since:
2008-08-27

"for (auto i = v.begin(); i != v.end(); i++)


In the educative example above, you should really use ++i instead of i++. This may seem like nitpicking, but there is a significant performance difference. When using i++, the compiler will have to invoke the copy constructor at each iteration. "

I thought most modern compilers were smart enough to recognize that you're not using the unincremented value, and thus do the right thing?

Reply Parent Score: 1

Read more of this thread... >