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 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 ]