C++0x Final Committee Draft Approved

http://herbsutter.wordpress.com/2010/03/13/trip-report-march-2010-iso-c-standards-meeting/

by EricBurnett • 16 years ago

27 10 16 years ago

herbsutter.wordpress.com

j_baker• 16 years ago

Shouldn't it be C++xx?

frou_dh• 16 years ago

C++0B

weaksauce2• 16 years ago

C++0xB?

huhtenberg• 16 years ago

This is not backward-compatible. With C++98 that is.

jrockway• 16 years ago

One thing I didn't realize until now is that the "0x" is not some reference to 0x1234568, but rather, it was supposed to be the last two digits of some year between 2000 and 2009. Oops.

Anyway, I still don't see the point of C++ anymore. Is C++0x just for making legacy C++ codebases slightly easier to maintain by adding a few features over C++ + Boost?

machrider• 16 years ago

I think the most important change to C++ is the addition of a memory model and standard primitives for threading. In its current state, writing a truly thread-safe, portable program in C++ is nearly impossible.

Edit: For some detail on the subject, see Boehm's paper, "Threads cannot be implemented as a library." http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2004/HPL-2004-209.pdf [PDF]

sorbits• 16 years ago

Lots of us use and love C++ and lots of new things is still being written in C++ — it is not a legacy language.

C++98 introduced us to generic programming and C++0x continues along that path.

chancho• 16 years ago

Performance. Until someone rewrites the entire Haskell standard library to use unboxed primitives and that stream fusion voodoo then C++ sits alone at the intersection of performance, abstraction and usability.

C++0x Final Committee Draft Approved

Related Stories