Linked by David Adams on Sun 14th Aug 2011 22:41 UTC, submitted by subterrific
General Development The final ISO ballot on C++0x closed on Wednesday, and we just received the results: Unanimous approval. The next revision of C++ that we've been calling "C++0x" is now an International Standard! Geneva will take several months to publish it, but we hope it will be published well within the year, and then we'll be able to call it "C++11."
Thread beginning with comment 484980
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by kaiwai
by subterrific on Mon 15th Aug 2011 00:34 UTC in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
subterrific
Member since:
2005-07-10

I've been playing with some of the features already implemented in g++, and mostly I've discovered they help reduce the amount of code I have to write. What I'm most looking forward to are the additions to std:: like smart pointers, threads, mutexes, hash containers. std::move support (new constructors and assignment operators) is something that I think will take a bit of getting used to, but it provides a much needed distinction between copying and moving. std::unique_ptr is a good example of where this matters.

Edited 2011-08-15 00:34 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai
by iwod on Mon 15th Aug 2011 03:22 in reply to "RE: Comment by kaiwai"
iwod Member since:
2006-05-02

I am not exactly a hard core programmer. But just looking through the changes C++ has gotten a lot more complex then.

I wonder why people haven't looked more into C and Objective C.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai
by Vagrant on Mon 15th Aug 2011 04:01 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai"
Vagrant Member since:
2011-08-15

Because C++ is far more powerful than C or Objective-C and people who program for a living don't find C++ too complicated.

C is completely inappropriate for large projects. And for small ones, C++ can do anything that C can do, and better.

Objective-C (and Objective-C++) are really just layers on top of C (and C++). Objective-C is cool, but it is not a low-level language like C++.

C++ is a lower-level language than C and Object-C, but it has all of the high-level tools for building any sort of project. It is a truly general-purpose lange, where the other two are not.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai
by moondevil on Mon 15th Aug 2011 05:35 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

I wonder why people haven't looked more into C and Objective C.


Because C does not offer all high level abstractions and better type safety that C++ does.

And Objective-C is an Apple proprietary language that is only used to write MacOS X and iOS applications.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai
by Neolander on Mon 15th Aug 2011 06:38 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

I am not exactly a hard core programmer. But just looking through the changes C++ has gotten a lot more complex then.

I wonder why people haven't looked more into C and Objective C.


No one truly masters C++. But each one likes his own subset of it ;)

There are still lots of people using C, huge projects even. Things like GLib, embedded software (the faction that have stopped using Asm directly, I mean) or the kernel of most Unices come to mind.

As for Objective C, well... Once again, Apple have been too much of control freaks and have pissed of the geek audience because of that, the problem being that in that case, it was their target audience. Besides, there's not much of a benefit in using Objective C over C++, and you lose a lot of language flexibility by doing so (C++ can be used at a lower level, be lighter on resource, it offers metaprogramming and operator overloading...).

To sum it up, the reason why Objective C has never taken off outside of the Apple world is that C++ is what its users want it to be, whereas Objective C is what Apple want it to be.

Edited 2011-08-15 06:44 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai
by danieldk on Mon 15th Aug 2011 07:19 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai"
danieldk Member since:
2005-11-18

I wonder why people haven't looked more into C


C provides relatively little opportunity for abstraction, and less safety. To give one example: the only manner to make a generic algorithm is by using macros (bad) or void pointers. In C++ you can just write a templated definition, which provides genericity and type safety.

and Objective C.


People use C++ because they want a fast low-level object-oriented language. Objective-C is the opposite, since it uses late binding and heterogeneous containers, it is far too slow for things that people typically use C++ for.

If you are proposing alternatives, D is probably the thing that comes closest. However, that language is plagues by having two widely used standard libraries, and having only a mature compiler for D2 that uses a non-FLOSS backend (dmd2).

However, if you want to compile to machine code, Haskell and OCaml may also be possibility. If used wisely, you can write fast programs in both languages.

Edited 2011-08-15 07:19 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 6