SoylentNews

C++ 14 Ratified

posted by LaminatorX on Tuesday August 19 2014, @04:30AM   
from the (C++)++ dept.

tkd-physics writes:

Herb Sutter reports that the ballot closed on Friday.

From the announcement:

We will perform some final editorial tweaks, on the order of fixing a few spelling typos and accidentally dropped words, and then transmit the document to ISO for publication this year as the brand new International Standard ISO/IEC 14882:2014(E) Programming Language C++, a.k.a. C++14."

https://isocpp.org/blog/2014/08/we-have-cpp14

• Oh greatOh great (Score: 3, Interesting) by nukkel on Tuesday August 19 2014, @05:28AM

  by nukkel (168) on Tuesday August 19 2014, @05:28AM (#82927)

  C++, now with even more paradigms piled half-baked on top!

  Is it procedural? Yes, but you really shouldn't.
  Is it object-oriented? Only at compile time.
  Is it a functional language? The preprocessor is.

  What was missing? Oh, I know! Let's add an awkward closure syntax! Let's try to simulate weakly typed languages using the auto keyword!

  Starting Score:	1		point
  Moderation		+1
  Interesting=1, Total=1
  Extra 'Interesting' Modifier		0
  Karma-Bonus Modifier		+1
  Total Score:		3

• Re:Oh greatRe:Oh great (Score: 2, Informative) by Refugee from beyond on Tuesday August 19 2014, @07:00AM

  by Refugee from beyond (2699) on Tuesday August 19 2014, @07:00AM (#82943)

  What auto keyword has to do with weak typing? Auto variable doesn't change type in runtime.

  --
  Instantly better soylentnews: replace background on article and comment titles with #973131.

  Parent

  • Re:Oh great(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 19 2014, @09:39AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 19 2014, @09:39AM (#82980)

    Well, some people obviously think just because they don't write down the type themselves, it isn't there.

    BTW, I wonder if with the return type inference for lambdas with several returns, they allow for the same type inference as they allow for ?: since I think it would be frustrating if you'd do

    [](long x)
    {
      if (x>0)
        return x;
      else
        return 0;
    }

    and the compiler complains, while

    [](long x)
    {
      return (x>0)? x : 0;
    }

    compiles fine. Note that while in this specific case, the ?: is just as readable, in more complex situations it may not be.

    Parent

• Re:Oh great(Score: 1) by tkd-physics on Wednesday August 20 2014, @03:10PM

  by tkd-physics (1306) on Wednesday August 20 2014, @03:10PM (#83555)

  Sarcasm fail.

  Procedural? Yes, and you really should. Only the undereducated think OO is the only right way. Actually, only the undereducated think *any specific technique* is the only right way.

  Object oriented only at compile time? Incorrect, OO is just about the only thing C++ can't do at compile time.

  Functional? The preprocessor should be used as little as possible, but most compile time programming is functional. (Well, *all* of it with template metaprogramming, I'm not yet sure how the new constexpr stuff will work out.)

  Awkward closure syntax? Weird, not awkward, a year from now nobody will notice. (The variable declaration syntax is awkward, but that was inherited from C, and everybody is used to that by now.) As I understand it, C++ lambda syntax is just about the only way they could make it work without breaking backwards compatibility. Or do you have a better way they could have done it?

  Parent