September 18, 2022 Re: Cppfront : A new syntax for C++ | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
 Posted in reply to IGotD- | On Saturday, 17 September 2022 at 15:56:54 UTC, IGotD- wrote: >On Saturday, 17 September 2022 at 11:08:37 UTC, Tejas wrote: >...... For D, The existing features need to be repaired completely. Don't try to be too fast. | |||
September 18, 2022 Re: Cppfront : A new syntax for C++ | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
 Posted in reply to Ola Fosheim Grøstad | On Saturday, 17 September 2022 at 22:27:32 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: >On Saturday, 17 September 2022 at 14:57:40 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: >With Val, Carbon and now Cppfront coming out of the C++ community itself, we are at an inflection point, I bet C++26 might be the latest big revision. I don't know. I think C++ has become fairly well-rounded now that clang is catching up on C++20. At this point it will take a while for the C++ community to make good use of C++'s take on coroutines and concepts. It would probably be a bad idea to continue to push in more big features. Some smaller ones like SIMD are missing still. But in the longer term I think we will see more standardized hardware oriented features related to parallelism, co-processors etc. I suspect Intel and AMD will have to do something to ensure their own relevance in the long term, and C/C++ is where they can make software "hardware dependent". So in that sense C/C++ has a guaranteed long life span. System programming isn't just market driven, it is also hardware driven. Clang catching up, that is news to me, specially in what concerns modules. Herb Sutter clearly address the issues the need to fix C and C++ due to US new cyber security bill where it explicitly calls out for software no longer being written in C and C++, unless there is no other option. Eventually using unsafe languages will require clearance from a cyber security government agency. | |||
September 18, 2022 Re: Cppfront : A new syntax for C++ | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
 Posted in reply to Paulo Pinto | On Sunday, 18 September 2022 at 08:47:24 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: >Herb Sutter clearly address the issues the need to fix C and C++ due to US new cyber security bill where it explicitly calls out for software no longer being written in C and C++, unless there is no other option. Eventually using unsafe languages will require clearance from a cyber security government agency. Links? | |||
September 18, 2022 Re: Cppfront : A new syntax for C++ | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
 Posted in reply to Paulo Pinto | On Sunday, 18 September 2022 at 08:47:24 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: >Clang catching up, that is news to me, specially in what concerns modules. Slowly catching up then :-). The things I care the most about are in. | |||
September 18, 2022 Re: Cppfront : A new syntax for C++ | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Nicholas Wilson | On Sunday, 18 September 2022 at 09:25:25 UTC, Nicholas Wilson wrote: >On Sunday, 18 September 2022 at 08:47:24 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: >Herb Sutter clearly address the issues the need to fix C and C++ due to US new cyber security bill where it explicitly calls out for software no longer being written in C and C++, unless there is no other option. Eventually using unsafe languages will require clearance from a cyber security government agency. Links? His CppCon talk. The Atlantic Council report on the bill, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/buying-down-risk/memory-safety/ | |||
September 18, 2022 Re: Cppfront : A new syntax for C++ | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Ola Fosheim Grøstad | On Sunday, 18 September 2022 at 09:51:52 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: >On Sunday, 18 September 2022 at 08:47:24 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: >Clang catching up, that is news to me, specially in what concerns modules. Slowly catching up then :-). The things I care the most about are in. Just like what Apple and Google care about is C++17 and nothing beyond that, meanwhile no compiler vendor selling C and C++ compilers based on clang forks seem to care about upstream ISO C++ compliance. Hence my surprise about your remark regarding catching up. | |||
September 18, 2022 Re: Cppfront : A new syntax for C++ | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Paulo Pinto | On Sunday, 18 September 2022 at 10:26:43 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: >Just like what Apple and Google care about is C++17 and nothing beyond that, meanwhile no compiler vendor selling C and C++ compilers based on clang forks seem to care about upstream ISO C++ compliance. Hence my surprise about your remark regarding catching up. Sure, I care most about things that simplify the way I would write C++17ish code: concept, requires, span, char8_t, [[no_unique_address]], bitcast, feature test macros… That feature test macro approach could turn into a sleeping pill, though. I am in favour of it, but it puts less pressure on compiler vendors. It allows programmers to start using new features with a fall-back, but it also allows vendor to say "it isn't quite done, but you can use that compatibility layer library over there". Clang does fairly well with C++23, so that is a bit odd, perhaps. I guess some C++20 features are hard to work into their internal representation (IIRC basically an explicit AST). https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/compiler_support/20 | |||
September 18, 2022 Re: Cppfront : A new syntax for C++ | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
 Posted in reply to Paulo Pinto | On 9/18/22 03:24, Paulo Pinto wrote: > On Sunday, 18 September 2022 at 09:25:25 UTC, Nicholas Wilson wrote: >> Links? > > His CppCon talk. > > https://youtu.be/CzuR0Spm0nA > > The Atlantic Council report on the bill, > > https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/buying-down-risk/memory-safety/ Thank you! This is one of the reasons I love these forums. I find valuable fuel just when I am tupdating my D introduction slides. :) Ali | |||
September 18, 2022 Re: Cppfront : A new syntax for C++ | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
 Posted in reply to Ali Çehreli | On Sunday, 18 September 2022 at 14:45:54 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote: >On 9/18/22 03:24, Paulo Pinto wrote: >On Sunday, 18 September 2022 at 09:25:25 UTC, Nicholas Wilson Links? His CppCon talk. The Atlantic Council report on the bill, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/buying-down-risk/memory-safety/ Thank you! This is one of the reasons I love these forums. I find valuable fuel just when I am tupdating my D introduction slides. :) Ali I guess if they're considering even C# as an alternative with respect to C++, then D most definitely fits the bill as well despite the GC 😃 | |||
September 18, 2022 Re: Cppfront : A new syntax for C++ | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
 Posted in reply to Paulo Pinto | On Sunday, 18 September 2022 at 10:24:38 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: >His CppCon talk. The Atlantic Council report on the bill, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/buying-down-risk/memory-safety/ A big part of the first section is some kind of political talk how they use the strategy of early 1900 century communist intellectuals in order to advance C++. Good indication that something is not quite right. Then I skimmed through Sutters CppFront presentation and quickly realized that it doesn't help much at all. Rather I must learn another syntax in addition to learning the vast C++ language. All this time spent on trying "fix" C++, think what you could have done with a new language or an existing sane one. I have probably mentioned, if you see modern C++, don't walk away, run away. Now it's more I need a really fast vehicle. What's good is that the world has moved on and there are plenty of alternatives and more a popping up all the time. There is no excuse for using C++ anymore for new projects. Thank you for giving us these jump scares now and then. | |||
Permalink
Reply
