Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

cancel ×

911 comments

It keeps going and going.... (4, Funny)

deman1985 (684265) | about 11 years ago | (#6416631)

And I thought the next version of C would be +++... and then ++++

Re:It keeps going and going.... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6416671)

C++H0--NO CARRIER!

Re:It keeps going and going.... (2, Informative)

bluethundr (562578) | about 11 years ago | (#6416704)

And I thought the next version of C would be +++... and then ++++

Well, since there was never a "C+" language, and you increment variables by one with "++" (hence the inherent joke in the name "c++"..."c incremented by one") a more logical construct would be (c++)++

Re:It keeps going and going.... (5, Funny)

kevin@ank.com (87560) | about 11 years ago | (#6416812)

Well, since there was never a "C+" language, and you increment variables by one with "++" (hence the inherent joke in the name "c++"..."c incremented by one") a more logical construct would be (c++)++

I'm rooting for C+=2.

Re:It keeps going and going.... (-1, Redundant)

Hard_Code (49548) | about 11 years ago | (#6416856)

c+=2

Re:It keeps going and going.... (4, Funny)

MouseR (3264) | about 11 years ago | (#6416859)

Actually, I would have chosen ++c++;

Re:It keeps going and going.... (1)

Hard_Code (49548) | about 11 years ago | (#6416902)

Actually (c++) is not an l-value is it?...I don't think you can assign to it...

c += 2 (5, Funny)

Doomdark (136619) | about 11 years ago | (#6416857)

Yeah, but that wouldn't be backwards compatible! (wouldn't compile with current compilers).

So let's see; somebody else already proposed (c++)++ , which is a reasonable suggestion... but... um... how about "c += 2"? For now, it's as concise as the alternative, but going forward it will scale better (c += 3 vs ((c++)++)++ ).

Re:c += 2 (5, Funny)

JanneM (7445) | about 11 years ago | (#6416916)

On the other hand, maybe the ((((c++)++)++)++)... system will induce LISP-hackers to take a serious look at the language. /Janne

C+=2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6416890)

Actually, a continuation of the patern C, C++ is C+=2. Perhaps that was already taken. Does C++0x rhyme with detox?

WHY DON'T THEY JUST CALL IT C++++ (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6416638)

Re:WHY DON'T THEY JUST CALL IT C++++ (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6416751)

actually it's C++;C++;
...or C^2
...or C*2.01
...or C+++ (since they're extending things)

Re:WHY DON'T THEY JUST CALL IT C++++ (1)

cosmo7 (325616) | about 11 years ago | (#6416804)

c += 2;

FP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6416649)

FP!!!1

Whatever. (-1, Flamebait)

tomstdenis (446163) | about 11 years ago | (#6416662)

You nuts can invent C(\+)* while I will stick to plain jane ISO C thank ya very much.

Seems people keep inventing new languages to solve problems which are already solved in existing languages. Maybe if the two week IT people who are the backbone of these languages of the week spent three seconds and checked for existing solutions [libraries] they wouldn't seek the language of the second.

Tom

Re:Whatever. (2, Informative)

addaon (41825) | about 11 years ago | (#6416690)

Um... C is C(\+)*.

Re:Whatever. (1)

tkittel (619119) | about 11 years ago | (#6416861)

> Um... C is C(\+)*.

yeah, he obviously meant C(\+)+ :-)

Re:Whatever. (1)

Evil Adrian (253301) | about 11 years ago | (#6416742)

Great, you stick your old ass to plain jane ISO C, I and the rest of the world that has realized the benefits of object-oriented programming will move on to that which is superior.

"two week"??!! (0, Troll)

Fubar411 (562908) | about 11 years ago | (#6416765)

So someone, who in no way has mastered his native language, is telling the C++ crowd how to write a language. Unbelieveable!!!

Re:"two week"??!! (0, Offtopic)

IceAgeComing (636874) | about 11 years ago | (#6416863)

And now someone, who has mastered sticking his foot in his mouth, can go crawl back into his highly American-centered hole. Bjarne Stroustrup's native language is not English.

Re:Whatever. (1)

deman1985 (684265) | about 11 years ago | (#6416781)

You have to imagine some theoretical limit to all the plusses at some point. I can just see it now...

"What language did you write that app with?" "Oh, let's see.. That one was C plus plus, plus plus, plus plus.... plus"

Re:Whatever. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6416797)

You are an idiot. Try using OO in plain C.

It's possible, but needlessly difficult.

C++ exists for a reason. Don't say it's shit if you haven't had time to delve into it or used it enough to form an opinion based on facts.

The "two week IT people" are not that. More to the point, the 2 week IT people are the ones who spout comments like yours.

Re:Whatever. (1)

Doomdark (136619) | about 11 years ago | (#6416823)

In case no one has ever told you, there is a very good saying "right tool for the job". C is very useful language, for (nowadays) fairly limited, albeit important, set of problems. Other C-derivatives are superior to C in many other areas.

Re:Whatever. (1)

mr_e_cat (611996) | about 11 years ago | (#6416915)

With the C++Ox or thay are just adding more gobbledegook. Take this from the link:

Controling Implicit Template Instantiation


Piling abstraction on abstraction. The language is more complex than the logic it is trying to implement.

why not... (3, Funny)

darth_MALL (657218) | about 11 years ago | (#6416665)

...make it like grade school and just give the poor bastard a "B". Enough already ;)

C++0x? (0, Redundant)

awtbfb (586638) | about 11 years ago | (#6416669)


How about upping the name to D?

Re:C++0x? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6416719)

I always thought you'd up it to B.

I know in grade school it went C, C+, C++ (tho those were only from bastard teachers :) ), B-, B, B+, etc.

Personally I wouldn't mind seeing B- :P

Re:C++0x? (1)

AssFace (118098) | about 11 years ago | (#6416732)

Isn't it technically already an implied D?
(we have used C, and then after that incremented it to D)

So it would actually be better to have the new one called "D++"?

Re:C++0x? (2, Funny)

nusuth (520833) | about 11 years ago | (#6416891)

If there is any progress, the new language should be at least ++C. You see, C++ is better than C but all you have is the C before C++.

Re:C++0x? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6416738)

It's taken [digitalmars.com] .

Re:C++0x? (2, Informative)

Randolpho (628485) | about 11 years ago | (#6416740)

Already done!

D Programming Language [digitalmars.com]

Re:C++0x? (1)

nocomment (239368) | about 11 years ago | (#6416758)

How about upping the name to D?
Don't you mean B-?

I see a lot of requests to _add_ things. Is there anything that should be put in as a request for removal?

Re:C++0x? (1)

bluethundr (562578) | about 11 years ago | (#6416811)

How about upping the name to D?

Makes sense to me. Dennis Ritchie and fellows decided to call C "C" because it was the successor to a language called "B". B stood for "Bell" as in Bell Labs where both those languages (as well as C++) were invented. The lab is located (still) at a place called Murray Hill NJ. Not sure where "X" was developed, though I think it might have been Berkeley. "X" of course was developed as the successor to "W" which stood for (brace yourself) "Windows". What will these brilliant engineers think of next? ;)

where does the name come from? (3, Interesting)

newsdee (629448) | about 11 years ago | (#6416674)

It may be a no-brainer for many of you, but can somebody enlighten me on why the name is C++0x? AFAIK C++ was named as such to indicate it was "more than C" [C++ is C = C+1 for the unlikely few who wouldn't know]. Is this the same kind of nomenclature (0x is zero in Hex), or is it something pronunciation-based ("plusox"?)...

Re:where does the name come from? (5, Informative)

Joe Decker (3806) | about 11 years ago | (#6416708)

Language revs are often referred to by the year of the completion of their standardizatioin (e.g., C++98.) The next C++ would presumably be somewhere in this decade, e.g., C++05 or so, but of course nobody is sure what year the work would be completed in, ergo C++0x.

Re:where does the name come from? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6416918)

Or if you had glanced at the site maybe it stands for C++ OXFORD. Fucking moron.

Re:where does the name come from? (2, Informative)

the_2nd_coming (444906) | about 11 years ago | (#6416709)

ummm...no.

C++98
C++0x.....the x will be replaced by a numberal for the year that the standard will finaly be ratified.

Re:where does the name come from? (1)

Arslan ibn Da'ud (636514) | about 11 years ago | (#6416942)

C++0x.....the x will be replaced by a numberal for the year that the standard will finaly be ratified.
Sigh. You mean, even at this late date, C++ is not Year-2000 compliant???

Re:where does the name come from? (4, Interesting)

alefbet (518838) | about 11 years ago | (#6416721)

The current version of C++ is often referred to as C++ 98 because it was finalized in 1998. The next standard should be finalized around 2007ish, so it's sometimes informally referred to as C++0x (think Windows 9x).

Re:where does the name come from? (5, Insightful)

MrCocktail (468886) | about 11 years ago | (#6416722)

I too read it as "C++ followed by some hex number to be named later", but after skimming very quickly through the proposal, it seems they meant "C++ (20)0x, where x depends on whatever year the spec/implementation/whatever is released". Or, at least, that's what I think it means.

Re:where does the name come from? (1)

Epistax (544591) | about 11 years ago | (#6416733)

It's actually Ox, not 0x. Ox - Oxford. At least the website sure makes it seem like that.

Re:where does the name come from? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6416772)

That means the language is not year 2000 compatible :D double digit and not 4.

Re:where does the name come from? (3, Funny)

grub (11606) | about 11 years ago | (#6416784)


"C++ is to C as Lung Cancer is to Lung"
- a sig I read on slashdot

Re:where does the name come from? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6416909)

So, you have to be smoking something for it to develop?

Great... (1)

tevenson (625386) | about 11 years ago | (#6416678)

More changes to the standard so that the compilers can't keep up! Microsoft Visual Studio (6 or .NET) still can't handle templates correctly. For half the stuff I do I have to use gcc or VS shits itself. I guess gcc will always be what I use.

Re:Great... (2, Informative)

kannibal_klown (531544) | about 11 years ago | (#6416716)

Version 6 sucked A$$, but Vis c++ .Net is actually pretty good. And wtf are you talking about, I've used templates before with .Net (2002 and 2003) and had no problem.

Re:Great... (1)

tevenson (625386) | about 11 years ago | (#6416786)

When you get into doing some nasty template stuff (nested, etc...) .NET breaks. What are the main differences between 2002 and 2003? Perhaps I've got 2002 and 2003 fixes the issues.

Re:Great... (2, Informative)

Homology (639438) | about 11 years ago | (#6416921)

The main difference is partial template specialization, apart from some speed optimizations.

However, alot of code breaks when moving to VC .NET 2003 : for some reason they decided to remove classic headers, giving us _days_ of work. I've never had so much problems with a compiler as with VC .NET 2003 when trying to just build projects that have worked fine since VC 6.0.

Re:Great... (1)

kannibal_klown (531544) | about 11 years ago | (#6416814)

BTW, my templates were rather simple, so maybe you meant advanced templates. Also, by "good" I mean follows the standards a hell of a lot better than 6.

Re:Great... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6416816)

Can VS.Net compile normal C code? Ie., non class based code (C++ objects).?

Re:Great... (1)

alefbet (518838) | about 11 years ago | (#6416851)

Version 6 sucked A$$, but Vis c++ .Net is actually pretty good. And wtf are you talking about, I've used templates before with .Net (2002 and 2003) and had no problem.
The areas where VC++ chokes on templates (both 6 and .net) are:
  • Partial template specialization (it doesn't do at all), and
  • Template member functions (it can't parse the syntax for defining the function body outside the class body, making the class definition really cluttered).
Those are the things I've commonly run into, and why I'm in the middle of switching to gcc. Someone else may know of other things, but I think these are the two big ones.

Of course, it also doesn't handle export, but almost no one does, and the standard is a bit foggy on it anyway.

Re:Great... (0, Flamebait)

AssFace (118098) | about 11 years ago | (#6416808)

perhaps this explains why I sometimes shit myself when using templates.
I had always blamed Korean food.

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious! (5, Funny)

Dark Lord Seth (584963) | about 11 years ago | (#6416680)

ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG21

Someone try to say that ten times fast!

C++0x ? (5, Funny)

Cipster (623378) | about 11 years ago | (#6416682)

Sounds like the l33t version of C++
The hardest part is deschiphering the comments...

directions for C++? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6416684)

Calling a paper "Directions" is the quickest sure-fire way to ensure that _nobody_ will read it...

A better name (0, Redundant)

earthforce_1 (454968) | about 11 years ago | (#6416695)

would be c+=2, with source files using the .cp2 extension. Can't be any worse than C++0x.

I think "D" is already taken.

Re:A better name (1)

usotsuki (530037) | about 11 years ago | (#6416739)

Yep.

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/index.html

-uso.

Re:A better name (1)

emag (4640) | about 11 years ago | (#6416802)

Looking through the linked PDF, it wasn't until slide #6 that it hit me what "C++0x" was, when I saw a reference to "C++98". "x" looks like it's a placeholder, but jeez, you'd think we'd have learned by now about using only 2 digits to denote a year!

Re:A better name (1)

p3d0 (42270) | about 11 years ago | (#6416854)

Dude, C++0x is not the proposed name of the language.

Alan (4, Funny)

grub (11606) | about 11 years ago | (#6416697)


What does Alan C++0x think of this?

Alan C++0X (4, Funny)

sulli (195030) | about 11 years ago | (#6416768)

This is what happens when he's happy to see you!

Masturbating Jackstone (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6416796)

My name is Masturbating Jackstone and I wish /. would just bend over so I could bugger it.

Why C didn't progress to D.. (2, Interesting)

Peter Cooper (660482) | about 11 years ago | (#6416706)

Everyone knows the history of C, coming from B, which came from A. Sure, an object-oriented version of C might be C++.. but why are we progressing onto C++0x (which reads like 'cocks' to me, anyone else??)? Isn't it time for D? Or is this a marketing/branding thing?

Either way, it doesn't look too exciting judging from these proposals. It's certainly nothing on the scale of Perl 6 compared to Perl 5, so yeah, maybe I've answered my own question. This is just a routine standards adjustment, rather than a real 'development.'

Re:Why C didn't progress to D.. (1)

Joe Decker (3806) | about 11 years ago | (#6416746)

Actually, B descended from BCPL, not A.

Re:Why C didn't progress to D.. (2, Informative)

vidarh (309115) | about 11 years ago | (#6416923)

Sigh... C descended from BCPL, hence the long standing joke from before C++ of whether the next language would be called D or P. However C++0x isn't a new language, it is the working name for the next version of the C++ standard, just as previous C standards are nicknamed C89 and C99 after the language and year they were completed, and the previous version of the C++ standard is often referred to as C++98. The "0x" is meant to reflex that the new version of the standard is likely to be done sometime this decade, without tieing anyone down to a specific year.

So the "right around the corner" in the article is perhaps a little bit optimistic - they've just barely started working on the new version.

Re:Why C didn't progress to D.. (1)

p3d0 (42270) | about 11 years ago | (#6416926)

Sheesh. Please see this [slashdot.org] .

C++0x? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6416723)

You mean...the successor ISN'T C#?!

I've...I've been living a lie...

Definition of the word "laconic" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6416728)

Etymology: Latin laconicus Spartan, from Greek lakOnikos; from the Spartan reputation for terseness of speech
Date: 1589
: using or involving the use of a minimum of words : concise to the point of seeming rude or mysterious

"I designed and implemented the C++ programming language." --Bjarne Stroustrup [att.com]

I think the name (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6416736)

is very dirty indeed.

It get's my vote.

Anonymous array members (4, Interesting)

Surak (18578) | about 11 years ago | (#6416743)

Honestly, I don't see how this is a big improvement. You have, basically:


struct somestruct {
int a;
int [3]; //3 pad bytes
int b;
}


vs.


struct somestruct {
int a;
int pad[3]; // 3 pad bytes, do not use
int b;
}


The only thing its really saving you is the variable name, and its giving you an extra check at compile time to ensure you don't use the 'pad' array. Which shouldn't be a problem with proper variable naming and documentation, right?

Re:Anonymous array members (4, Insightful)

Abcd1234 (188840) | about 11 years ago | (#6416874)

Okay, I'm normally not a vocal C++ basher (although I do dislike the language), but this is a really excellent example of the kind of cruft that has made it into C++. It's like everyone and their dog had some pet feature they wanted included in the standard, and the result is a huge mess of stuff that most people won't use but the compiler is forced to support.

I suppose this is what happens when you allow a programming language to be designed by a committee...

Re:Anonymous array members (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6416884)

Sorry to pick your nit, but int [3] will pad 12 bytes, not 3. an int is 4 bytes.

Re:Anonymous array members (1)

Surak (18578) | about 11 years ago | (#6416913)

I was hoping someone would point this out. In the example, they resize the array using sizeof() which costs you *more* code. :)

~bs (1)

panda (10044) | about 11 years ago | (#6416752)

Sorry, Bjarne, but your home directory sums up what I think of this proposal.

I mean, we're only just now getting compilers that properly handle the C++ standard from 5 years ago. Why muck things up now?

Re:~bs (1)

cK-Gunslinger (443452) | about 11 years ago | (#6416858)

Just like the linked PDF says, if a committee doesn't concentrate on C++, corporations will bend it to their will with proprietary crap and screw it up for the rest of us. Focus is a Good Thing.

Re:~bs (1)

vidarh (309115) | about 11 years ago | (#6416873)

Because we are now getting compilers that properly handle the C++ standard, so it is finally time to start addressing more of the ideas and concerns people have.

COBOL (5, Funny)

mikeee (137160) | about 11 years ago | (#6416753)

I'm still waiting for the object-oriented business programming language, "ADD 1 TO COBOL".

Wrong name (0)

p3d0 (42270) | about 11 years ago | (#6416885)

That name would corrspond to "C+1". "C++" corresponds to "ADD 1 TO COBOL GIVING COBOL".

How 'bout range checking like purify? (3, Interesting)

elwinc (663074) | about 11 years ago | (#6416763)

I think what C and C++ really lack is the option to turn on array range checking. Sure you can drop a couple grand for a purify [rational.com] license or learn to use valgrind, [freshmeat.net] but it should be an easy-to-switch compiler option.

How about adding... (-1)

bytes256 (519140) | about 11 years ago | (#6416782)

Adding Networking and Threading to the standard library? Those are essential in todays programs, and yet they're a PITA because the APIs are so non-standard.

What C++ really needs to do (-1, Troll)

Gendhil (686251) | about 11 years ago | (#6416794)

Is get all the features that made VB and Delphi stomp on it on most critical entreprise projects : easier and better RAD IDE, more component libraries and other utilities widely available to the developper (and well documented). Wait, isn't that C# without the extra overhead ? My guess would be that the good programming langage wouldn't be the one with no safe net (C++) or the one with safe nets that cripple the performance (C#), but the one where you can choose the degree of safety you need, and can play with it at will.

Fake? (-1, Flamebait)

nadim (83776) | about 11 years ago | (#6416810)

This post is clearly a fake as indicated by this google news thread:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=EK8Ea.1338% 24 qd3.1247%40tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net&oe= UTF-8&output=gplain

Bjarne Stroustrup is deceased and the PDF linked on the story has his name as the author. What gives? Show some respect people?

Re:Fake? (1)

nadim (83776) | about 11 years ago | (#6416914)

Oops broken link, try this:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=EK8Ea.1338% 24 qd3.1247%40tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net&oe= UTF-8&output=gplain

learn from Java (3, Insightful)

Karma Sucks (127136) | about 11 years ago | (#6416825)

I think C++ needs stuff *removed* more than it needs anything added.

Vaporware? (2, Informative)

cybermint (255744) | about 11 years ago | (#6416830)

We got the first c++ compiler to handle the whole language just a little over a year ago. (article [slashdot.org] ) I wonder how many decades it will be until we get a compliant compiler for c++r0x0rz.

Re:Vaporware? (1)

Eustace Tilley (23991) | about 11 years ago | (#6416920)

Sutter and Plum advocate dropping export, the reason the implementation you cite took so long, in this paper. [dkuug.dk]

From Merriam Webster Dictionary... (2, Funny)

Demodian (658895) | about 11 years ago | (#6416831)

Ox: [definition 1] a domestic bovine mammal

Just wait until the free standard comes out: C++Gnu

Re:From Merriam Webster Dictionary... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6416895)

GNU/C++ would be a much better fit, though, don't you think? I mean "new C++"

C'mon, it wasn't that bad was it?

Boost and STL (2, Informative)

Homology (639438) | about 11 years ago | (#6416844)

Note that parts of Boost library is suggested as part of the new standard :

N1450 03-0033 A Proposal to Add General Purpose Smart Pointers

I've used parts Boost quite alot myself (www.boost.org), and found it very useful even when using Visual Studio.

Lots of good papers there (3, Interesting)

Eustace Tilley (23991) | about 11 years ago | (#6416848)

I liked this, which supports "Quality of Implementation:"

The development cycle of embedded software does not easily lend itself to the trial-and-error style of programming and debugging, so a stubborn C++ compiler that catches as many errors as possible at compile-time significantly reduces the dependence on run-time debugging, executable run-time support and compile/download/test cycles.


This saves untold hours at the test bench, not to mention strain on PROM sockets.


Williams, Stephen, cited by Lois Goldthwaite in her Technical Report on C++ Performance [dkuug.dk]

OOP (1)

gregeth (688579) | about 11 years ago | (#6416860)

I think if you are going to put the work into improving C++, do like Java and get rid of the procedural and just make it OOP only. It's just so much more functional, and why not just have newbies start out learning it that way, instead.

Re:OOP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6416936)

Great.. throw out any semblance of efficent programming in the name of OOP.

how the hell do you pronouce that (1)

lophophore (4087) | about 11 years ago | (#6416862)

how the hell do you pronounce C++0x?

c plus plus zero x?

???

Stroustrup's Remove Embarrassments (1)

WC as Kato (675505) | about 11 years ago | (#6416865)

What does Stroustrup mean by "remove embarrassments?" I was never embarrassed to admit programming in C. As a matter of fact, back in the day (circa 1988) it was cool to tell people I programmed in K&R C. (This is Kernighan and Ritchie pre-ANSI C for you young'ens.)

Compiler Compliance (3, Interesting)

wideBlueSkies (618979) | about 11 years ago | (#6416870)

I haven't read all the proposals, hence my early post, but the subjects look interesting. It'll be cool to see what makes it to the final standard.

But that's not why I'm posting.

It's nice to read about all the standards processes, and I can appreciate all the great work that these bodies perform. But after the standards are completed, and everyone goes home, it seems to take years for the compiler writers to implement the standards properly.

I'm not trying to slam the poor developers who have to implement the changes. But yet, it seems that the standards bodies don't seem to take acutual usage of the last set of changes into account before proposing the next set of standards.

What I mean is this: Take C++ 97. OK? How many of us have actually used a 100% compliant compiler, and used the latest features? Not too many. I know I haven't. But it seems to me that the language masters want to go ahead and move C++ along without getting real feedback from developers about how useful the language changes are.

It's almost like the big boys are saying "well, it'd be nice to have X, Y, and Z in the language" instead of "you know, everybody hates the way we did A, B, and C back in 97. Lets think about fixing that". The language masters, IMHO are basing the next round of changes on their experiences, not the experiences of the developer community at large.

C++ is already a big complicated language. Maybe the standards process should slow down a bit and give us ordinary developers a few more years to catch up.

SCO (4, Interesting)

ikewillis (586793) | about 11 years ago | (#6416900)

Watch out, SCO thinks it owns C++ [mozillaquest.com] :

MozillaQuest Magazine: C++ appears to be one of the properties that SCO acquired through Novell's acquisition of AT&T's UNIX Systems Laboratories and subsequent purchase of Novell's UNIX interests by SCO. At this time most Linux and/or GNU/Linux distributions include C++ compilers and editors. Is this something for which SCO currently charges? If so, just what are the current arrangements? If not, will C++ licensing and enforcement be added to SCO's licensing and enforcement program?

Blake Stowell: C++ is one of the properties that SCO owns today and we frequently are approached by customers who wish to license C++ from us and we do charge for that. Those arrangements are done on a case-by-case basis with each customer and are not disclosed publicly. C++ licensing is currently part of SCO's SCOsource licensing program.

MozillaQuest Magazine: How about GNU C++? Does GNU C++ use SCO IP? If so, could SCO license and/or charge for use of its IP in GNU C++?

Blake Stowell: I honestly don't know.

In other news... (1)

PetWolverine (638111) | about 11 years ago | (#6416911)

Reports show that the reason for the groups lengthy debates was the argument over the syntax of the programming language's name itself.

Is it time to remove features? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6416924)

One big problem with C++ is that it is not an orthogonal language. There are too many misfeatures and so many different ways to abuse the language.

Could C++ be tightened up? Why not tackle that age old bugaboo the "dangling else". Why not take this opportunity to require curly braces around all if/else constructs? There are many small fixes like this which would make C++ a tighter, more robust language.

If C++ source is .CPP... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6416927)

(This is a joke, for the sarcasm impaired.)

Then will C++0x be .CPP0X? Sounds like "Seep Pox", a new virus caused by inadequate plumbing infrastructure.

Buffer overflow exploits, anybody?

<sig>Mr. Kaze</sig>

More on D (4, Insightful)

Randolpho (628485) | about 11 years ago | (#6416938)

I know talking about D is already redundant on this article, but I'd like to anyway. Improving c++ is great, but where c++ *really* needs improvements is the syntax. It's time for c++ to move into the 90s and get rid of the preprocessor. It's unnecessary with modern compilers, and it's a pain in the ass.

One of the stated goals on the .pdf file linked is to make c++ easier to learn, but many of the syntactic kludges in c++ (like the preprocessor and the differences between a pointer and a reference) confuse the hell out of newbies. It's time to adopt a syntax more like Java while retaining the power of native compilation and library creation that c++ gives.

In short, it really *is* time to move to D.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...