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 485013
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai
by danieldk on Mon 15th Aug 2011 07:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai"
Member since:

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