Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Stroustrup Says New C++ Standard Delayed Until 2010 Or Later

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the esperanto-wasn't-built-in-a-day dept.

Programming 501

wandazulu writes "At the end of an article written by the creator of C++, where he talks about removing a feature from the new C++ standard, he drops a bombshell: The new C++ standard (typically referred to as C++0x) has been delayed until 2010 or later. What does this mean? No new C++ features like threads, proper enum classes, or hash tables. C++0x is dead, long live C++1x!"

cancel ×

501 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I never get to say this... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28798397)

First!

Who cares now? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28798547)

Don't f*&($(&^) with my code standard.

http://firefoxhtml5test.webs.com/ (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28798407)

Namespace (4, Funny)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 5 years ago | (#28798423)

C++0x

Yes, well, that just rolls off the tongue, doesn't it?

Maybe he can get one of those hieroglyphs like Prince.

Well, it could... (5, Funny)

Petersko (564140) | more than 5 years ago | (#28798461)

"C++0x... Yes, well, that just rolls off the tongue, doesn't it?"

Well, it does if you just pronounce it "Cocks".

Re:Well, it could... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28798937)

Could we tag this story "cocksplusplus"?

Re:Well, it could... (2, Funny)

Steneub (1070216) | more than 5 years ago | (#28798943)

I guess in your case though it sort of rolls on to the tongue.

Re:Well, it could... (5, Funny)

Bemopolis (698691) | more than 5 years ago | (#28798955)

If the cock rolls off your tongue you're doing it wrong.

Re:Namespace (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28798469)

Here are three guessess:

See Plus Ox? (Dr Seuss' Teaching Hexidecimal)
CCCOX? (The Porn Edition)
seeplusplus zerox? (PC Load Letter, WTF does that mean?)

Re:Namespace (4, Insightful)

Keyper7 (1160079) | more than 5 years ago | (#28798851)

The Language Formerly Known as C++

Re:Namespace (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28799147)

Talking about names, if the language is delayed until at least 2010 shouldn't it be called C++1x?

Re:Namespace (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28799105)

The language is still called C++. ALL languages use this idiom when referring to certain revision of a language. For example, before the last version of C was ratified, it was referred to as C9X. It's still called C, but you can talk about C90 vs C99.

I know nothing about C++0x (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28798429)

But I can assure you it's better than Cloud Computing with JavaScript :)

Re:I know nothing about C++0x (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28798705)

If by "better" you mean "worse"

How about a REAL C++ feature.... (-1, Flamebait)

nweaver (113078) | more than 5 years ago | (#28798433)

A crowbar which can be used to whack anyone who writes programs in C or C++ which take untrusted input (like, oh, web browsers, word processors, PDF readers, etc etc etc etc etc) until they give up and use a language that is typesafe and memory safe.

Re:How about a REAL C++ feature.... (2, Insightful)

EkriirkE (1075937) | more than 5 years ago | (#28798485)

Because this is obviously the language's fault.

Re:How about a REAL C++ feature.... (5, Insightful)

ardor (673957) | more than 5 years ago | (#28798509)

Or a crowbar for anybody who thinks languages make things automatically safe.

If you are a good programmer, you can do safe programs in C++ or any other language.
If you are a bad programmer, you can't do that in C++ or any other language.

Re:How about a REAL C++ feature.... (5, Insightful)

HonIsCool (720634) | more than 5 years ago | (#28798649)

With that definition of good programmer, are there in fact any good programmers?

Re:How about a REAL C++ feature.... (5, Insightful)

PylonHead (61401) | more than 5 years ago | (#28798657)

If you are a good programmer, you can do safe programs in C++ or any other language.

So it must just be that there are no good programmers. Because I haven't seen any safe web browsers, word processors, or PDF readers.

Re:How about a REAL C++ feature.... (2, Insightful)

ardor (673957) | more than 5 years ago | (#28798727)

"Can" does not imply "must".

Re:How about a REAL C++ feature.... (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 5 years ago | (#28798757)

So everybody has programmed a web browser, word processor or PDF reader?

Can you hack a barebones lynx?

Re:How about a REAL C++ feature.... (1)

Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) | more than 5 years ago | (#28798951)

Lynx and notepad?

Re:How about a REAL C++ feature.... (2, Interesting)

Rei (128717) | more than 5 years ago | (#28798885)

Forget about type safety... just give me the "auto" variable type [wikipedia.org] . :P

Re:How about a REAL C++ feature.... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28798587)

How about you heat that crowbar until it glows, cram it up your ass, and stir it around until baked shit pours out of your navel, you ass-sucking lemur?

Re:How about a REAL C++ feature.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28798931)

Anger problem

Re:How about a REAL C++ feature.... (0, Troll)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#28799109)

Nigger problem.

No, really. Blacks are the angriest people you'll ever meet. Just don't look up when you talk to them or they'll beat the shit out of you...unless you're a fat white woman.

Re:How about a REAL C++ feature.... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28798663)

sure when those 'memory safe' languages produce efficient executables that do not require 400MB 'runtimes' to function. The net result from these sandbox environments is a bloated app that requires 5-10x more ram than is needed.

Re:How about a REAL C++ feature.... (0, Flamebait)

Freetardo Jones (1574733) | more than 5 years ago | (#28798889)

sure when those 'memory safe' languages produce efficient executables that do not require 400MB 'runtimes' to function.

So that means Java and .NET are good to go as neither one of them have 400MB runtimes.

The net result from these sandbox environments is a bloated app that requires 5-10x more ram than is needed.

Only if you can't code worth shit.

Re:How about a REAL C++ feature.... (2, Insightful)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 5 years ago | (#28798733)

Or better yet- take the crowbar and whack programmers who can't write in C++ until they leave the industry. If you can't understand memory allocation and pointers, you aren't competent to be in this profession.

Re:How about a REAL C++ feature.... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28798781)

Someone give grandpa his oatmeal.

Re:How about a REAL C++ feature.... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28798921)

someone stop feeding this kiddie count chocula and remind him that his precious sandboxed languages waste cpu cycles...lots of them, and that trend is increasing. The unchecked bloat that is being output by these latest college grads who know nothing but c#, vb, and java are serving no one's interest besides the hardware vendors.

Re:How about a REAL C++ feature.... (1, Interesting)

Freetardo Jones (1574733) | more than 5 years ago | (#28799067)

The unchecked bloat that is being output by these latest college grads who know nothing but c#, vb, and java are serving no one's interest besides the hardware vendors.

That's funny cause I've never seen a single C# or Java apps that uses as much memory as C++ programs like Firefox (currently using 350 megs of RAM) or OpenOffice.org (current using 250 megs of RAM). On the other hand I have 5 different .NET apps and a Java app running and their combined RAM usage isn't even 200 megs.

Re:How about a REAL C++ feature.... (0, Troll)

Freetardo Jones (1574733) | more than 5 years ago | (#28799143)

And btw before someone mentions something like Azureus as a counterexample, I've seen Firefox still eat up more RAM than that program if they are running for the same period of time and that's with about 10 or so torrents running in it.

Re:How about a REAL C++ feature.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28799145)

That's funny cause I've never seen a single C# or Java apps that uses as much memory as C++ programs like Firefox (currently using 350 megs of RAM) or OpenOffice.org (current using 250 megs of RAM). On the other hand I have 5 different .NET apps and a Java app running and their combined RAM usage isn't even 200 megs.

First: OO.o is Java.

Second: The language has little to no bearing on the amount of RAM being used. The amount of data being stored (and how it's stored), however, does. Firefox stores a lot of images and such, which, surprise surprise, eat up RAM.

Re:How about a REAL C++ feature.... (2, Informative)

Freetardo Jones (1574733) | more than 5 years ago | (#28799215)

First: OO.o is Java.

Bzzzt wrong. Look at the code, it's 98% or so C++. The only parts that are Java are some database access layers and some stuff for multimedia. Way to show yourself as being an idiot for repeating this oft-repeated and incorrect meme.

Second: The language has little to no bearing on the amount of RAM being used. The amount of data being stored (and how it's stored), however, does. Firefox stores a lot of images and such, which, surprise surprise, eat up RAM.

So then you've just effectively nullified your own point since you were blaming the languages on the bloat instead of the crappy programmers.

Re:How about a REAL C++ feature.... (1)

Bakkster (1529253) | more than 5 years ago | (#28799191)

The unchecked bloat that is being output by these latest college grads who know nothing but c#, vb, and java are serving no one's interest besides the hardware vendors.

That's funny cause I've never seen a single C# or Java apps that uses as much memory as C++ programs like Firefox (currently using 350 megs of RAM) or OpenOffice.org (current using 250 megs of RAM). On the other hand I have 5 different .NET apps and a Java app running and their combined RAM usage isn't even 200 megs.

Are any of those .NET apps a web browser or office application? Both require the files they are working on (or at least a sufficiently large portion of them) to reside in local memory. I'm guessing your .NET apps aren't doing anything as data intensive.

Let's at least compare apples to oranges, here, rather than ham to tomatos.

Re:How about a REAL C++ feature.... (1)

Freetardo Jones (1574733) | more than 5 years ago | (#28799239)

Are any of those .NET apps a web browser or office application? Both require the files they are working on (or at least a sufficiently large portion of them) to reside in local memory. I'm guessing your .NET apps aren't doing anything as data intensive.

The apps I am using store lots of what they are working in in local memory. One of them is a karaoke subtitle editor which holds the audio in ram, the other is a bittorrent client and one is actually a pretty bloated .NET program that is a frontend for a bunch of encoding tools and it still uses less memory than Firefox does on load up with no tabs opened.

Re:How about a REAL C++ feature.... (2, Insightful)

geekgirlandrea (1148779) | more than 5 years ago | (#28798867)

This. Can we add a special addendum specifying the use of chainsaw instead of a crowbar for fixed-size buffers without checking for overflow?

Re:How about a REAL C++ feature.... (5, Insightful)

Freetardo Jones (1574733) | more than 5 years ago | (#28798979)

Or better yet- take the crowbar and whack programmers who can't write in C++ until they leave the industry.

Because C++ is the pinnacle of programming knowledge? *giggle*

If you can't understand memory allocation and pointers, you aren't competent to be in this profession.

Just because one can understand memory allocations and pointers doesn't mean one wants to have to deal with them manually in all their programs. There is a reason why there are auto_ptrs in C++ and it's not because those people are "noobs", it's because people want to actually spend their time writing the program rather than having their time eaten up by writing tons of boilerplate memory management code.

Re:How about a REAL C++ feature.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28798751)

Let me guess, you need an electron microscope and optical tweezers to masturbate, right?

Re:How about a REAL C++ feature.... (2, Informative)

Sam36 (1065410) | more than 5 years ago | (#28798965)

typesafe and memory safe languages are written in c++ you insensitive cod!

Re:How about a REAL C++ feature.... (0, Redundant)

alvieboy (61292) | more than 5 years ago | (#28799013)

I love trolls :)

typesafe ? Is not C++ type safe ? Where did you read about C++, while listening to some podcast ? Get real man. Read the specs, use it.

Memory safe ? What is exactly this concept of "memory safe" ? Having a GC that does not have a clue of what the programmer wants to do ? To have a such dumb programmer that expects that memory allocations can be entirely managed by other layers ?

Get real. You ain't getting anything better than C++ for the time being.

Oh, sorry. I guess I can run VBscript and Java on this 16kb ROM/2kb RAM controller I have here... or then not.

Re:How about a REAL C++ feature.... (1)

Freetardo Jones (1574733) | more than 5 years ago | (#28799099)

Memory safe ? What is exactly this concept of "memory safe" ? Having a GC that does not have a clue of what the programmer wants to do ? To have a such dumb programmer that expects that memory allocations can be entirely managed by other layers ?

That's funny because any good C++ programmer will take advantage of auto_ptrs which effectively do manage memory for you automatically. Or is Bjarne Stroustop only a "dumb programmer" since he advocates their usage?

Re:How about a REAL C++ feature.... (1)

wowbagger (69688) | more than 5 years ago | (#28799207)

To have a such dumb programmer that expects that memory allocations can be entirely managed by other layers ?

That's funny because any good C++ programmer will take advantage of auto_ptrs which effectively do manage memory for you automatically.

However, the idea is that an auto_ptr "knows" much more about what the programmer is doing than many of the "garbage collection" systems that try to infer it by reading tea leaves^W^Wthe stack frames.

So you are both right: garbage collection that doesn't get enough data from the programmer sucks, and programmers that rely upon it suck - but auto_ptr and Boost's smart_ptr's don't belong to that category.

C++0A (4, Funny)

gr8_phk (621180) | more than 5 years ago | (#28798451)

Or C++0x0A no need to change the name.

Re:C++0A (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28798571)

I assume this is some leetspeak attempt to say Cocoa, which indeed is an improvement over C++.

Re:C++0A (3, Informative)

Eddy Luten (1166889) | more than 5 years ago | (#28798659)

Cocoa is an API, Objective-C is the language.

Re:C++0A (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28798839)

That's debatable. The line between API and standard library is a fine one. How many languages are just C or C++ syntax with a different (more complete?) standard library and maybe an added keyword or two?

Re:C++0A (2, Informative)

Elektroschock (659467) | more than 5 years ago | (#28798907)

Oh, and there is gnustep [wikipedia.org] .

Re:C++0A (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28798765)

I assume this is some leetspeak attempt to say Cocoa, which indeed is an improvement over C++.

Sigh, kids today. And I thought this was Slashdot. FYI, there is this cool numbering system called hexadecimal. It's base 16:

D H AKA
0 0 0x00
1 1 0x01
2 2 0x02
3 3 0x03
4 4 0x04
5 5 0x05
6 6 0x06
7 7 0x07
8 8 0x08
9 9 0x09
10 A 0x0A
11 B 0x0B
12 C 0x0C
13 D 0x0D
14 E 0x0E
15 F 0x0F

2010 , take 10 into Hexadecimal. Voila. Il est perfect, mon ami! Manger des bebes! Parler Klingoner! Il est mort, Jim!

Re:C++0A (3, Funny)

joss (1346) | more than 5 years ago | (#28798629)

Actually, that's what they're doing, its not a joke [my money's on C++0b though]

Re:C++0A (2, Funny)

Unoriginal_Nickname (1248894) | more than 5 years ago | (#28798661)

God only knows.

My money's on C++xx

Re:C++0A (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28798637)

no need to change the name.

Yes, no need, it was delayed , kids.

Re:C++0A (1)

Imagix (695350) | more than 5 years ago | (#28798883)

That was the running joke a while ago... the next standard is C++0x where x will be the year that it's final. Hopefully we won't have to use a hex digit for the x. Well, it would now appear that we wil have to use a hex digit....

Hmm. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28798455)

for(std::vector::iterator i = Jews.begin(); i != Jews.end(); i = Jews.begin())
{
        (*i)->PutInOven();
        delete (*i);
        Jews.erase(i);
}

Re:Hmm. (1)

joss (1346) | more than 5 years ago | (#28798769)

God, that's terrible.

You should be using
for (auto i=...)

or for_each(...) and the new [] lambda.. nevermind the really terrible stuff in there, lordy, you dont need * and ->, use * and . or just -> its almost like you're ignorant or out of date or something.

Goes to show how brilliant C++ is, in a normal language psychotic fuckers can do all sorts of damage, in C++ they can't even compile...

Re:Hmm. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28799241)

Actually, I think it was really ment to torture that vector...

Well (0)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 5 years ago | (#28798459)

That's the problem with standardization committees.... Too slow. While all this happens all other proprietary languages like Delphi, C#, you name it, are adding features day after day to make life easy for the programmer. And that , believe me or not, means a lot. Yes, sometimes that means a lot more that portability and all that jazz.

Re:Well (1)

caramelcarrot (778148) | more than 5 years ago | (#28798745)

Also some of the features they've been aiming for are pretty complex and don't have a proper implementation yet (like Concepts - good an idea as it is) - hence they're trying to standardize from thin air.

Not a bombshell (4, Informative)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 5 years ago | (#28798491)

It's not a bombshell by a long measure. Anyone who had been tracking C++0x standardization process (reading comp.std.c++, and WG papers [open-std.org] ) knows that the goal of getting the standard out by 2010 was fairly unrealistic, mostly because of concepts [open-std.org] . The joke that "x" in C++0x is actually a hex digit and not decimal has been around for several years now.

Re:Not a bombshell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28798869)

Conceptswere dropped from the proposed standard this month:

ddj [ddj.com]
wipipedia [wikipedia.org]

Re:Not a bombshell (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 5 years ago | (#28798945)

I know, that's what the TFA is about. The point is that it was mostly concepts that have mostly delayed the standardization process until now.

Re:Not a bombshell (-1, Offtopic)

glwtta (532858) | more than 5 years ago | (#28799033)

(reading comp.std.c++, and WG papers [open-std.org])

Hmm, I didn't know C++ was classified as a Sexually Transmitted Disease, but it kinda makes sense.

in related news... (5, Funny)

cowdung (702933) | more than 5 years ago | (#28798493)

The latest version of Cobol (eagerly expected by 6 people) will also be delayed till January 2011.

Re:in related news... (2, Funny)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 5 years ago | (#28798677)

God damn it!

Re:in related news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28799193)

I can just picture the disappointment.

Re:in related news... (4, Funny)

clintp (5169) | more than 5 years ago | (#28799199)

No worries. C++1x will still be out before Perl 6.

Poorly worded (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28798521)

"No new C++ features like threads, proper enum classes, or hash tables"

"Concepts" is the only thing being removed from the new standard due to time constraints (which is a shame since they seemed like a great new feature).

I think you meant to say 'No new C++ features .... _until next year at the earliest_'

Of course if you want to try some of the new features in the meantime feel free to checkout the expiremental branch of gcc [gnu.org] geared towards implementing C++0x.

Headline misses the point completely (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28798525)

The headline completely misses the central part of the article and focuses on a very minor point. Everyone has known for quite a while that C++0x would actually be C++1x. There's only a few months left in 2009, so there's absolutely no surprise there. The real meat of the article is that support for "concepts", a key (and arguably the most anticipated) part of C++0x, is being dropped. That's a major disappointment to many people, including Stroustrup.

Re:Headline misses the point completely (4, Insightful)

ardor (673957) | more than 5 years ago | (#28798565)

Yeah, but it is reasonable. Concepts are a complex feature, and C++ is an (overly) complex language. Do you really want to hold back all the other very important features like lambda, rvalue references, variadic templates, type deduction etc. just because of concepts?

Re:Headline misses the point completely (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28798635)

Sure it is reasonable, but that doesn't make it any less disappointing. The criticism was directed to the headline, not the content of the article.

But will they be useful without concepts? (4, Interesting)

wowbagger (69688) | more than 5 years ago | (#28799125)

"Do you really want to hold back all the other very important features like lambda, rvalue references, variadic templates, type deduction etc. just because of concepts?"

Unfortunately, without concepts, many of the templates that would make features like those REALLY powerful aren't implementable due to silly things like the compiler insisting upon being able to instantiate member functions that don't make sense for a class and won't be used, just because there isn't a means to tell the compiler "and if this member doesn't make sense, just don't instantiate it, and throw an error IF AND ONLY IF somebody tries to use it." (and yes, I know about SFINAE, but that gets REALLY UGLY to do).

I've been bit by this, where I ended up having to create two completely separate template classes, one for objects that don't have sub-members and one for objects that do, just because I couldn't tell the compiler "Look, if operator . doesn't exist for this method, then don't worry about it!"

That said: I will say, I felt that some of the implementation details of concepts felt "forced" to me, in the same way that the streams library feels "forced": they "hacked" (in the bad way) the library in using language semantics that weren't a good fit.

<sigh/> - I hope the extra time will allow them to put a bit more polish on how you actually express things, and make it feel less "forced"....

And nothing of value was lost (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28798545)

Why the #$%! do computer scientists believe that languages are like movies and you need to release a sequel? There is nothing they can add to any language that cannot be done effectively with C and C++ with a good support library like BOOST and STL. Language-specidic Threads? Enum classes? Hash tables? All of those are ALREADY possible without another language being introduced.

The purpose of new languages? To sell books. To sell compilers. To keep academics publishing about their new inventions. But lets face it, we have enough languages now. If you can't accomplish what you want to do in a relatively short time with the options that are now available, the problem isn't the language.

Re:And nothing of value was lost (3, Informative)

ardor (673957) | more than 5 years ago | (#28798639)

Are you saying that C++0x is unnecessary?

If so, then you haven't stumbled upon C++'s many problems. Like, lack of rvalue references. Or, lack of a proper lambda.

Re:And nothing of value was lost (2, Insightful)

speedtux (1307149) | more than 5 years ago | (#28799027)

If so, then you haven't stumbled upon C++'s many problems. Like, lack of rvalue references. Or, lack of a proper lambda.

I think \bigger problems are C++'s complexity, the presence of pointers, the use of include files, and the lack of garbage collection.

Forty acres and a flying car... (5, Insightful)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#28799141)

C++ can't be fixed by adding features.

C++ can only be fixed by removing features.

My minivan won't get me to Jamaica, so I need to add wings or pontoons? Or maybe I should buy an airline ticket instead?

Use the right tool for the job. Sticking another bag on the side of a language that's almost entirely bags isn't going to fix it. If you need a better language than C++, maybe you shouldn't be using C++.

Re:And nothing of value was lost (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28798643)

Did you even look at some of the new features [wikipedia.org] . I'm eagerly awaiting llamda functions, initializer lists, and the 'auto' keyword for one.

Re:And nothing of value was lost (1, Insightful)

Random Person 1372 (1529155) | more than 5 years ago | (#28798703)

Why the #$%! do programmers believe that operating systems are like movies and you need to release a sequel? There is nothing they can add to any operating system that cannot be done effectively with Windows 3.1 with a good virus scanner. Multitasking? Network support? Memory protection? All of those are ALREADY possible without another operating system being introduced.

The purpose of new operating systems? To sell licenses. To sell books. To keep journalists publishing about their new registry tricks. But lets face it, we have enough operating systems now. If you can't accomplish what you want to do in a relatively short time with the options that are now available, the problem isn't the oeprating system.

Re:And nothing of value was lost (1)

Metasquares (555685) | more than 5 years ago | (#28799089)

If you can't move forward, you'll surely fall behind. We have new ways of doing things which have the potential to make all of our lives easier. Our tools must evolve with us, or we must find new ones.

remove your helmet and tell me your name (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28798549)

Buffer overflow (2, Funny)

tomasd (1294992) | more than 5 years ago | (#28798563)

There will be buffer overflow after C++0xFF

Re:Buffer overflow (1)

EkriirkE (1075937) | more than 5 years ago | (#28798589)

But we are no longer in the 1970s

old news, this has been known for over a year (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28798573)

the standards body has very specific steps that it needs to go through for approval of the standard, with defined notification, voting, etc time windows. mid 2008 it was already clear that it was impossible to follow these rules and get final approval by the end of 2009, even if you assume that nobody has _any_ changes or corrections to anything

David Lang

Why this is bad (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 5 years ago | (#28798591)

C++ concepts were effectively the same as Haskell typeclasses - an extremely powerful feature that allows for fully and properly typechecked (unlike present-day C++ templates, which are "typechecked" in essentially the same way macros are) abstraction and code reuse in a statically typed language. Removing them significantly reduces the power of the language, and effectively makes C++ a minor evolution of the language (most notable new features are now probably rvalue references and lambdas), and leaves templates as broken as they are today. It's too bad. I'd rather see the standard delayed even more, but done properly.

Re:Why this is bad (1)

ardor (673957) | more than 5 years ago | (#28798621)

Note though that concepts can sort of be emulated in a limited way by using static asserts. Also, variadic templates are introduced, which significantly reduce compile time and size of error messages (because for example boost.bind does not need 10 overloads to support 1 argument, or 2, or 3 ...). So things are not all that bad.

Well java has standard Thread lib since 1996 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28798645)

Even if they were not preemptive on the MAC in 1996, it would still work if you cared to call Thread.yield() once in a while.

Hashtable and Enumeration were there in 1996 as well. All newer versions of Java provide backward compatibility for the 1996 version of these classes. Code written in 1996 still runs fine.

Don't get me wrong, I like assembly, C and bash, I am just stating a fact.

Re:Well java has standard Thread lib since 1996 (1)

ardor (673957) | more than 5 years ago | (#28798699)

So? C++ code from 1996 still runs fine as well. Haskell code from 1996 still runs fine as well. etc..
What exactly is your point?

Oh, please. (5, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 5 years ago | (#28798713)

No new C++ features like threads, proper enum classes, or hash tables

Cause one thing C++ sure doesn't have is enough features, right?

-jcr

Re:Oh, please. (1)

alexmin (938677) | more than 5 years ago | (#28798903)

Cause one thing C++ sure doesn't have is enough features, right?

Some of us do not equal C++ to C with classes.

Re:Oh, please. (1)

Metasquares (555685) | more than 5 years ago | (#28799137)

Would be kind of nice if hash_map could finally make it into std, though. Maybe even with a consistent include file across different platforms :)

Old news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28798817)

I did not RTFA but is there anything new in here? I learned that C++0x was being renamed to C++1x and would not be out untill 2010 a while ago. I think over half a year ago when I was visiting the IRC channels.

Re:Old news? (1)

Arimus (198136) | more than 5 years ago | (#28799113)

I had a vague feeling I recalled C++0x being moved to 2010 and renamed... now reading your post I'm more convinced this is, indeed, old news. Not that /. ever posts old news :roll:.

C++0x is really good though (4, Informative)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 5 years ago | (#28798831)

I haven't been following C++0x, but after reading the C++0x FAQ [att.com] I am very pleased. It really fills a lot of the simple, practical holes in the language.

I think the success of C# is part of why these things are being considered. For example, C# recently added an advanced form of initializer lists - which is now in C++0x. Another example is the scoping of enums, which has long been a pain. Many coding standards require enums to be ALL_CAPS_WITH_UNDER_SCORES because they don't obey scoping rules: this is fixed. NULL is now replaced with nullptr, which is a minor improvement that looks much like how this was done in C++/CLI. (That's the bastardized C++ for .NET). Namespace cleanups, foreach, ... the list is huge, and it looks like C++ is "borrowing back" from Java and C#.

Competition is good.

I know that everything I just listed probably exists in many other languages, but C# and Java are very prominent in enterprise development, and are making huge gains. I will be very very glad to see a real ISO standard gaining ground again.

Thats a mouthful (4, Funny)

Demonantis (1340557) | more than 5 years ago | (#28798871)

C++0x is a goofy name no wonder no one wants to work hard on it. How would you like that on your resume. C+=2 is much more consistent with the language and is much easier to read.

who cares? (4, Insightful)

speedtux (1307149) | more than 5 years ago | (#28798909)

C++ has reached staggering complexity already; I don't think adding another 40 pages of complicated features is going to make the language any better.

Mod parent up... (3, Funny)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#28799061)

On the whole, I'd rather code in Ratfor.

Where did you get this information? (1)

LittLe3Lue (819978) | more than 5 years ago | (#28798911)

What does this mean? No new C++ features like threads, proper enum classes, or hash tables.

As far as I understand, concepts have been "decoupled" from this standard, but not threads, proper enum classes, or hash tables.

My bad (1)

wandazulu (265281) | more than 5 years ago | (#28798957)

Sorry, I meant to say that without a final C++ standard, we wouldn't have these features in a standard commercial compiler; I didn't mean to imply that they had been removed from the standard itself.

So in reality we shouldn't use it until 2015 then (5, Insightful)

SpyPlane (733043) | more than 5 years ago | (#28798941)

I've been following C++0x for a long time now, and have been looking forward to it, but now I'm not so sure I'll ever use it. I was looking forward to Concepts more than anything and with that gone, it seems like a extremely minor upgrade. Also, even when the spec does come out, how many years before we can trust that most compilers can use it effectively... two, three? Then after we've been using it for a while, how long before books come out that tell us that we've been using it all wrong and we have to start over (ie: the Exceptional " " and Effective " " books from Sutter and Meyers)?

Okay, so I can use C++0x well in 10 years, okay I'll probably be so burned out by then I'll be a manager, or I will have convinced someone to let us use D for embedded work and something managed for everything else.

Ye canno' change the laws of physics... (3, Funny)

frank_adrian314159 (469671) | more than 5 years ago | (#28799181)

They can't release a new standard until they figure out a way to keep the language from collapsing under its own weight, forming a black hole that would destroy the solar system.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>