News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Why should I have written ZeroMQ in C, not C++ (2012). Parent comment

Re:Why should I have written ZeroMQ in C, not C++ (2012) by shaklee3 on Thursday December 13, 2018 @12:36AM (#18670093)
To be fair to the author, std::optional was added in C++17, which came after this blog post was written. I agree, maybe if he had written it today his views would be different.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why should I have written ZeroMQ in C, not C++ (2012) by gpderetta on Thursday December 13, 2018 @03:09AM (#18670650)
And yet boost optional has existed for a good half of forever. C++ programmers have been writing they're own versions (maybe, fallible, etc) for the other half.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why should I have written ZeroMQ in C, not C++ (2012) by jcelerier on Thursday December 13, 2018 @03:10AM (#18670654)
But there have been <optional> implementations around for more than a decade
[ Parent | on HN ]