1. 15

  2. 3

    I’m glad this was clarified. I think it’s nice to see even standards committees committing to a steady release cycle. I also wonder how much of this is supported by having something like gcc and clang offering a way to try out features in the draft standards?

    1. 2

      This article highlights the main reason I went down the Java path instead of C++ in the late 90’s. I was genuinely excited about the idea of C++, but without a core standard, feature support in compilers were wildly different, and writing portable code was frustrating. During my undergraduate years, I kept hearing that the standard was right around the corner, but by the time it materialized, I had already moved on.

      Now that I’m returning to C++ after all these years, I’ve got a multitude of well-defined standards to choose from, and I’m finding that compiler support is excellent, with only a few oddities here and there. To catch up on the developments, I ressurected some of my old C++ code from 1997 and forward-ported it to the c++0x standard in a few hours. To my surprise, it compiled and ran without any modifications on Linux, MacOS and Windows 8.1. This language has really come a long way.

      In retrospect, if the c++98 standard had shipped on time (1994), I may have had a different career path.

      1. 0

        because the c++ standard committee have lost their direction. they are not being innovative anymore, they prefer to copy from C# and Java and others.