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...
If the new language has good interop with C++ then it can be.
Good interop with C++ means parsing and instantiating templates. This means you have a C++ compiler.
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).
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++.
The D language, while not 100% C++ compatible, takes a pragmatic approach to C++ interop (https://dlang.org/spec/cpp_interface.html)
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?