News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on C++17 – better than you might think. Parent comment

Re:C++17 – better than you might think by jimbokun on Thursday December 29, 2016 @10:49AM (#13277895)
"There are talks from Google who invested heavily into modules using clang and got gains, but as far as I understand they fixed those issues only for themselves"

I thought Google fixed the C++ compile time problem by inventing Go?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:C++17 – better than you might think by krona on Thursday December 29, 2016 @11:06AM (#13278033)
Inventing a new programming language is hardly sufficient if your existing codebase is 10M lines of c++ :).
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:C++17 – better than you might think by haberman on Thursday December 29, 2016 @12:14PM (#13278485)
If we're talking about Google, I think the number is at least one order of magnitude larger. A year ago Google estimated it at 2 billion lines, though that appears to include all languages (not just C++): https://www.wired.com/2015/09/google-2-billion-lines-codeand...
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:C++17 – better than you might think by lmm on Thursday December 29, 2016 @01:00PM (#13278810)
If the new language has good interop with C++ then it can be.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:C++17 – better than you might think by ori_b on Thursday December 29, 2016 @01:21PM (#13278944)
Good interop with C++ means parsing and instantiating templates. This means you have a C++ compiler.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:C++17 – better than you might think by usefulcat on Thursday December 29, 2016 @01:13PM (#13278900)
It doesn't help at all as soon as you need to do anything that requires compiling those 10M lines of legacy code (think bug fixes, for example).
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:C++17 – better than you might think by user5994461 on Thursday December 29, 2016 @01:55PM (#13279176)
No language has good interop with C++.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:C++17 – better than you might think by OlaOst on Thursday December 29, 2016 @06:38PM (#13281203)
The D language, while not 100% C++ compatible, takes a pragmatic approach to C++ interop (https://dlang.org/spec/cpp_interface.html)
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:C++17 – better than you might think by the_why_of_y on Saturday December 31, 2016 @04:49PM (#13293360)
Not even C++ has good interop with C++, given how underspecified it is. Is that library built with MinGW or with Visual Studio?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:C++17 – better than you might think by vvanders on Thursday December 29, 2016 @01:08PM (#13278861)
Last I looked at Go is was missing pinning and few other things that are necessary for interacting with native code.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:C++17 – better than you might think by agentgt on Thursday December 29, 2016 @12:08PM (#13278448)
No they invented their own build system and tools (Bazel). Although some of the tools are open source the true distributed compile scaling stuff I think is still not.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:C++17 – better than you might think by paulddraper on Thursday December 29, 2016 @03:42PM (#13279954)
No, they invented Blaze (general purpose caching build tool, open-sourced as Bazel).

Go is hardly a replacement for C++. Garbage collection, no templates, no const, etc.

[ Parent | on HN ]