C++17 and its Technical Specifications

Re:C++17 and its Technical Specifications by jguegant on Thursday March 03, 2016 @04:42PM (#11220282)

Here starts the rustwin point.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:C++17 and its Technical Specifications by PeCaN on Thursday March 03, 2016 @05:06PM (#11220432)

Modern C++ isn't really that fun on Windows either... (no Valgrind, GCC and Clang are ported later, many fewer libraries)

D on Windows is surprisingly pleasant though.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:C++17 and its Technical Specifications by santaclaus on Thursday March 03, 2016 @05:19PM (#11220507)

I read the comment as a reference to Godwin's law, not Windows.

Rustwin's law: As discussions of C++ grow longer, the probability of a comparison to Rust approaches 1.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:C++17 and its Technical Specifications by PeCaN on Thursday March 03, 2016 @08:39PM (#11221463)

Derp, how'd I miss that. Yeah, I bet that was what the parent meant.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:C++17 and its Technical Specifications by readams on Thursday March 03, 2016 @07:57PM (#11221270)

Microsoft has been very active in the standards efforts. Valgrind missing is painful, but there are windows-specific memory validation tools as well. I'm a Linux developer though so I don't feel that pain much.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:C++17 and its Technical Specifications by santaclaus on Thursday March 03, 2016 @09:18PM (#11221616)

Do Clang's sanitizers work on the Windows?

[ Parent | on HN ]