On 15/08/2015 05:57, T.J. Duchene wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 22:38:35 -0700
> Isaac Dunham <ibid.ag@???> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> To elaborate on this, GCC 5.1 (I think) has changed the ABI for C++11
>> support.
>> Packages using C++11 need to be rebuilt with the new library;
>> libreoffice has already been rebuilt, but not KDE.
>
> That's a very good point, Isaac. C++11 is a very interesting revision,
> although C++14 is technically the highest available standard. I'm never
> a fan of rapidly changing standards, because they tend to be a mess,
> poorly considered. I understand they plan another revision for 2017,
> and I think they are nuts.

I don't. I write C++ code for my day job, and I'd have to say that
these revisions make C++ better than ever to write. It's cleaner,
simpler, and more maintainable. Just last week I wrote some prototype
code in C++11, and later had to change it to use C++98 features to
comply with the project's requirements. It doubled the line count and
made it vastly less readable, and this was using only two features: auto
types and range-base for loops. The benefits it provides are not
insignificant.

When you say they are "nuts", are there any changes in C++14 or C++17
which you have found to be ill-considered? While no standard is ever
"perfect", I have no complaints about C++11 or C++14. Since these are
ISO standards, the realities of the process means there's little scope
for pushing in lots of poorly thought out changes at the last
minute--most of the changes have been planned and implemented for many
years. There's only one feature I can think of which was bad--template
export--and this was in C++98; and I think they learned their lesson
from that one--never put in a standard a features which hasn't been
implemented and tested in the real world.


Regards,
Roger