On 21 May 2014 at 13:53, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
I still think the comparisons with C11 aren't relevant and don't help make your point.
Yeah, I should explain that. One of the central tenets of my presentation at C++ Now and its accompanying position paper is that C++ 11/14 does not deliver much useful to its use case as THE systems programming language over C11. I posited that if you looked at the new features in C++ 11/14 which C11 does not have from the perspective of a Python runtime engineer, you saw almost zero improvements. Or, put another way, C++ 11/14's new features are mainly introspective and inward facing - I believe I used the phase "navel-gazing". My claim was that this was fine for one major standards release, but probably unwise for a second major standards release and definitely a bad idea if continued for a third. I followed that claim with a further claim that stopping deliberately ignoring C++ ABI management would be a major tick in favour of C++ as the future systems programming language, and for that we need to reawaken the type export feature, and I went into some depth about how to do that. Otherwise it will continue to be C as people's first choice for new code (indeed C has always been favoured over C++ for new open source code), and C++ may end up turning into a Haskell variant used only by a specialist elite for low latency and HPC applications. Hence the constant comparison with C11. Does that make sense now? Niall -- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/