Jump to page: 1 24  
Page
Thread overview
C++ launched its community survey, too
Feb 27, 2018
Andrea Fontana
Feb 27, 2018
12345swordy
Feb 27, 2018
H. S. Teoh
Feb 27, 2018
Adam D. Ruppe
Feb 27, 2018
H. S. Teoh
Feb 27, 2018
jmh530
Feb 27, 2018
jmh530
Feb 27, 2018
Paolo Invernizzi
Feb 27, 2018
12345swordy
Feb 28, 2018
Walter Bright
Feb 27, 2018
Mark
Feb 28, 2018
0xFFFFFFFF
Feb 27, 2018
Jonathan M Davis
Feb 27, 2018
bachmeier
Feb 28, 2018
Atila Neves
Feb 28, 2018
Stefan Koch
Feb 28, 2018
Atila Neves
Feb 27, 2018
12345swordy
Mar 03, 2018
Joakim
Feb 27, 2018
H. S. Teoh
Feb 27, 2018
bachmeier
Feb 27, 2018
H. S. Teoh
Feb 27, 2018
Jonathan M Davis
Feb 28, 2018
Patrick Schluter
Mar 11, 2018
Laeeth Isharc
Mar 11, 2018
Dmitry Olshansky
Mar 01, 2018
German Diago
Feb 27, 2018
JN
Feb 27, 2018
Seb
Feb 28, 2018
psychoticRabbit
Feb 28, 2018
Zoadian
Feb 28, 2018
TheFlyingFiddle
Feb 28, 2018
H. S. Teoh
Feb 28, 2018
TheFlyingFiddle
Feb 28, 2018
H. S. Teoh
Mar 07, 2018
Nick Treleaven
Mar 07, 2018
H. S. Teoh
Feb 28, 2018
Mike Franklin
February 27, 2018
https://isocpp.org/blog/2018/02/new-cpp-foundation-developer-survey-lite-2018-02

Andrei
February 27, 2018
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

... and D is listed as an alternative.
February 27, 2018
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.
February 27, 2018
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 05:33:52PM +0000, 12345swordy via Digitalmars-d 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.

And just about every new dmd release, people fume on this forum about regressions and gratuitous code breakages.


T

-- 
It only takes one twig to burn down a forest.
February 27, 2018
On Tuesday, 27 February 2018 at 17:41:07 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> And just about every new dmd release, people fume on this forum about regressions and gratuitous code breakages.

Not all deprecations/code breakages are *regressions* and *gratuitous*.

You just need to do a cost/benefit look at it. For C++ though, supporting decades of very widespread use is doing to adjust the cost calculus of a change relative to D, of course.
February 27, 2018
On Tuesday, 27 February 2018 at 17:41:07 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 05:33:52PM +0000, 12345swordy via Digitalmars-d 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.
>
> And just about every new dmd release, people fume on this forum about regressions and gratuitous code breakages.
>
>
> T

Which doesn't bother me at the slightest as there are reasonable trade offs for this.
February 27, 2018
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 05:46:58PM +0000, Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Tuesday, 27 February 2018 at 17:41:07 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> > And just about every new dmd release, people fume on this forum about regressions and gratuitous code breakages.
> 
> Not all deprecations/code breakages are *regressions* and *gratuitous*.
> 
> You just need to do a cost/benefit look at it. For C++ though, supporting decades of very widespread use is doing to adjust the cost calculus of a change relative to D, of course.

Of course.  The amount of code breakage caused by a new release of dmd is surely less than the amount of code breakage that would be caused by an implementation of a new backward-incompatible C++ standard.  That's why it's not going to happen.

Well, OK, there *have* been backward-incompatible changes in the C++ standard (I experienced some myself just these past 2 weeks while updating an old C++98 project of mine... which was also motivation for ditching C++ completely and migrating the whole codebase to D).  But you're not going to see the sort of fundamental change that will fix some of the longstanding inherent design problems with C++, because that would mean alienating the majority of existing C++ projects out there. Even if the C++ committee went ahead with such a revision, it will surely not fly: nobody will want to implement it.

We saw a similar situation, though on a smaller scale, with the whole D1/D2 Tango vs. Phobos fiasco. Even today that scar still persists in outsiders' perception of D, despite all our efforts to bury that ugly past.


T

-- 
Winners never quit, quitters never win. But those who never quit AND never win are idiots.
February 27, 2018
On Tuesday, 27 February 2018 at 18:42:20 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> [snip]
> Well, OK, there *have* been backward-incompatible changes in the C++ standard (I experienced some myself just these past 2 weeks while updating an old C++98 project of mine... which was also motivation for ditching C++ completely and migrating the whole codebase to D).  But you're not going to see the sort of fundamental change that will fix some of the longstanding inherent design problems with C++, because that would mean alienating the majority of existing C++ projects out there. Even if the C++ committee went ahead with such a revision, it will surely not fly: nobody will want to implement it.

The economic way of thinking is to consider whether the marginal benefit of a breaking change on all future code and whether that would exceed the marginal cost of a breaking change requiring old projects to be re-written. As most of us recognize, if the amount of old code that needs to be re-written is large and the cost of re-writing it is high, then it would overwhelm any changes of little benefit. Thus, I'm not sure this resistance to backward-incompatible changes is something all that specific to C++. I would guess that if D were as popular as C++, then the rational thing to do would be to be slow moving and be very careful about making costly breaking changes.
February 27, 2018
On Tuesday, 27 February 2018 at 19:01:57 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
> 
>
> The economic way of thinking is to consider whether the marginal benefit of a breaking change on all future code and whether that would exceed the marginal cost of a breaking change requiring old projects to be re-written. As most of us recognize, if the amount of old code that needs to be re-written is large and the cost of re-writing it is high, then it would overwhelm any changes of little benefit. Thus, I'm not sure this resistance to backward-incompatible changes is something all that specific to C++. I would guess that if D were as popular as C++, then the rational thing to do would be to be slow moving and be very careful about making costly breaking changes.

"The economic way of thinking is to consider whether the marginal benefit of a breaking change on all future code would exceed the marginal cost of a breaking change requiring old projects to be re-written."
February 27, 2018
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

;)
« First   ‹ Prev
1 2 3 4