On Tuesday, 27 February 2018 at 15:52:15 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> https://isocpp.org/blog/2018/02/new-cpp-foundation-developer-survey-lite-2018-02
>
> Andrei

really, online surveys are dodgy at best.

btw. Bjarne Stroustrup recently received the 2018 Charles Stark Draper Prize for Engineering - https://www.nae.edu/Activities/Projects/Awards/DraperPrize/DraperWinners/2018Draper.aspx

I think that is dodgy too. Why give someone a prize for creating C++. I just don't get it.

It should have gone to the Java developers - cause they deserved it.

C++ is the worst thing to have ever come out of computer science!

The only reason it's still with us, is because corporations are stuck with it, and force it on us all, cause it's too expensive for them to replace.

I want no part of it.

The answer to Q:15 => I'd go back in history and make Stroustrup a fluffy dog, or a fluffy cat or something.

On Tuesday, 27 February 2018 at 15:52:15 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> https://isocpp.org/blog/2018/02/new-cpp-foundation-developer-survey-lite-2018-02
>
> Andrei

"If you could wave a magic wand and change one thing about any part of C++, what would it be, and how would that change help your daily work?"

Deprecate C++, endorse D, and allocate all existing resources to either improving D, or implementing a fork of D.

"Do you have any additional feedback for C++ standardization?"

It's time for C++ to retire, and make room for better, emerging languages.  I hate having to use it.

On 2/27/2018 9:41 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> And just about every new dmd release, people fume on this forum about
> regressions and gratuitous code breakages.

On Tuesday, sure.

Then on Wednesday the same people propose breaking changes :-)

Everybody wants it both ways, including me.

On Wednesday, 28 February 2018 at 00:53:16 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote:
> It should have gone to the Java developers - cause they deserved it.
>
> C++ is the worst thing to have ever come out of computer science!

yes c++ is not the greatest language (thats why i use D). but java is the worst language i've ever used.

On Tuesday, 27 February 2018 at 21:07:03 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 01:33:18PM -0700, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote: [...]
>> [...]
>
> Not strictly true.  My old C++98 project no longer compiled with the latest g++, because it contained things allowed in C++98 that are no longer allowed in C++17.  Some things were relatively simple to fix, but others were quite painful to fix, so I ended up using --std=c++11 as a workaround instead.  In the frustrating process of trying to fix things C++17 complains about, I threw in the towel and decided to rewrite it in D instead.
>
> [...]
The fun with C++
the same expression means completely different things in C++98 and C++11

    fon< fun< 1 >>::three >::two >::one

and there's no context change, it's parsing rules that changed.

https://gustedt.wordpress.com/2013/12/18/right-angle-brackets-shifting-semantics

On Tuesday, 27 February 2018 at 20:46:20 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
> On Tuesday, 27 February 2018 at 20:33:18 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>
>> The other problem is that many of C++'s problems come from being a superset of C, which is also a huge strength, and it would be a pretty huge blow to C++ if it couldn't just #include C code and use it as if it were C++. To truly fix C++ while retaining many of its strengths would require fixing C as well, and that's not happening.
>
> That's why it would be a big deal to be able to directly include C header files in D projects (as was discussed around here not that long ago).

I'm working on this.

Atila

On Tuesday, 27 February 2018 at 20:33:18 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> The other problem is that many of C++'s problems come from being a superset of C, which is also a huge strength, and it would be a pretty huge blow to C++ if it couldn't just #include C code and use it as if it were C++. To truly fix C++ while retaining many of its strengths would require fixing C as well, and that's not happening.

I think you can have C plus another language just fine.

In C++ you use extern "C" as a wrapper, you could easily run a completely different parser within an extern "C" block and build a different type of AST for it.

This was probably out of reach in the 80s and early 90s when compiler resources was an issue, but with LLVM and gigabytes of RAM I think it would be quite reasonable to do something like that.

People don't do it because the basic counter argument always is "but we already support C through linkage", but that doesn't mean that there would be no real productivity advantage to building C into the language.

Not that I would do it if I designed a system level language, mostly because I think it would be better to build tools for transpiling code from C to the new language. C is a dead end now, I think.

Ola

On Wednesday, 28 February 2018 at 11:32:32 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
> On Tuesday, 27 February 2018 at 20:46:20 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 27 February 2018 at 20:33:18 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>
>>> The other problem is that many of C++'s problems come from being a superset of C, which is also a huge strength, and it would be a pretty huge blow to C++ if it couldn't just #include C code and use it as if it were C++. To truly fix C++ while retaining many of its strengths would require fixing C as well, and that's not happening.
>>
>> That's why it would be a big deal to be able to directly include C header files in D projects (as was discussed around here not that long ago).
>
> I'm working on this.
>
> Atila

You do ?
Please link me to your progress if you can.

On Wednesday, 28 February 2018 at 12:06:38 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
> On Wednesday, 28 February 2018 at 11:32:32 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 27 February 2018 at 20:46:20 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 27 February 2018 at 20:33:18 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>>
>>>> The other problem is that many of C++'s problems come from being a superset of C, which is also a huge strength, and it would be a pretty huge blow to C++ if it couldn't just #include C code and use it as if it were C++. To truly fix C++ while retaining many of its strengths would require fixing C as well, and that's not happening.
>>>
>>> That's why it would be a big deal to be able to directly include C header files in D projects (as was discussed around here not that long ago).
>>
>> I'm working on this.
>>
>> Atila
>
> You do ?
> Please link me to your progress if you can.

I had an earlier version with could successfully #include nanomsg, then I ran into problems doing the same thing with curl, and restarted from scratch. My DConf talk submission is on this.

Atila

On Tuesday, 27 February 2018 at 19:03:54 UTC, Mark wrote:
> On Tuesday, 27 February 2018 at 17:33:52 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 27 February 2018 at 15:52:15 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> https://isocpp.org/blog/2018/02/new-cpp-foundation-developer-survey-lite-2018-02
>>>
>>> Andrei
>>
>> I have submitted, already. My major complaints boils down to the fact that they refuse to deprecated features due to religious like devotions to backwards compatibility support.
>
> You're not the only one who thinks so -
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ND-TuW0KIgg
>
> ;)

Modules couldn't make it but we have a new syntactic sugar for SFINAE.

[someone should make for Dlang too]