Re:Constexpr-8cc: Compile-time C Compiler
by matthewaveryusa on Friday November 18, 2016 @04:49PM
(#12990357)
I don't find auto, lambda, and variadic templates, move semantics and smart pointers to be bolted on. You can write Fortran in any language.
You think rvalue references are a natural and elegant construct? That if C++ were designed with move semantics in mind, this is the road they would have travelled down?
Re:Constexpr-8cc: Compile-time C Compiler
by kinghajj on Friday November 18, 2016 @11:24PM
(#12992061)
That's the biggest reason that I like Rust more than C++, even more than lifetime/safety. I've been working on a C++14 application, and "std::move" shows up a lot more than implicit copies, which not only makes the code more verbose, but analyzing performance more difficult. (I so wish I could be using Rust, but, unfortunately, the only FOSS DNP3 implementation is in C++.)
Re:Constexpr-8cc: Compile-time C Compiler
by andrepd on Friday November 18, 2016 @10:26PM
(#12991902)
Please show me the "nice" and "well thought" and "elegant" and "modern" language with the sheer amount of resources, documentation and momentum that C++ has? It's not going to go away for the foreseeable future, even if slightly better options arise (notice the slightly, no language has substantially improved on C++ in a meaningful enough way to make the benefits of migrating greater than the headaches).
> And I'm not even getting into C++17.
I'm with you there, in a way.