On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 10:13:56 +0000
Roger Leigh <rleigh@???> wrote:

er 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.

I don't argue against the apparent benefits. Quite the reverse,
actually. The people who work on the ISO standards are far from stupid
people and probably know more than I ever will on the subject.

I admit I am concerned from time to time that things are not as thought
out as they might be. Rapid releases curtail discussion, and one thing
I do not want to see is C++ ending up like de-facto languages, where
you can't depend on anything to any extent.


> When you say they are "nuts", are there any changes in C++14 or C++17
> which you have found to be ill-considered?

Not at presently, but to be perfectly honest, my exposure to C++11 has
been limited so far. Thanks to you, I've been spending more time with
it.

My concern is actually over implementation. Historically, phasing in
support for standards tends to be done slowly, often piecemeal, and
there are always bugs. By rapidly releasing changes to the standards,
I am concerned that more regressions will creep into the compiler
software in the mad scramble to keep up with demand.

Microsoft's Visual Studio is famous for being a pain in the backside.
I would hate to see GCC get worse, because they already have a less
than sterling reputation for bug resolution. I've not used Clang
extensively, so I can't speak to it.



> 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.

I would agree with you, and rest easy in that the ISO is keeping things
under control except that they seem to be make use of "fast track" on a
number of things these days. Thankfully, most of the fast track
ballots seem to be for Microsoft crap.

T.J.