new spec c++

[Grahamo]

Hi,

what's the status of the latest c++ specification, can anybody tell me.
Is it close to completion? Once completed, is it a race by compiler
vendors to implement it and put the "new ansi C++ standard compliant"
sticker on their product? Or are they too concerned with other
technologies to give c++ that much attention... given the advances made
by Java and C#. (I say that because I get the impression that certain
vendors are investing heavily in other technologies while leaving the
other "unsexy" (C++) technologies behind) . i.e. C# and such like.


The reason I ask is that a large piece of code needs to be refactored
(major refactor) and I'm trying to see if it's worth availing of the
new c++ standard implementation (i.e. wait for it) or whether that's
going to be a while before it's available.

thanks much

G

 

[Victor Bazarov]

what's the status of the latest c++ specification, can anybody tell me.

Take a look at http://www.comeaucomputing.com/iso/ , it contains a good
summary.

Is it close to completion?

See "What's the C++ committee up to" on that page.

Once completed, is it a race by compiler
vendors to implement it and put the "new ansi C++ standard compliant"
sticker on their product?

Not likely. By that time usually they have all pretty much caught up to
it already. Except for some, who are pretty much caught up in their own
"business". You, know, software vending as usual.

Or are they too concerned with other
technologies to give c++ that much attention...

Some are, some aren't.

given the advances made
by Java and C#. (I say that because I get the impression that certain
vendors are investing heavily in other technologies while leaving the
other "unsexy" (C++) technologies behind) . i.e. C# and such like.

Now, you're just trolling. Calling C++ unsexy is like saying that Cindy
Crawford is ugly [because she's been around for some time now].

The reason I ask is that a large piece of code needs to be refactored
(major refactor) and I'm trying to see if it's worth availing of the
new c++ standard implementation (i.e. wait for it) or whether that's
going to be a while before it's available.

You say "refactored". In what direction? What is the purpose of that
refactoring? Shouldn't _that_ drive your decision instead of what's sexy
and what's not?

V

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Erik_Wikstr=F6m?=]

Hi,

what's the status of the latest c++ specification, can anybody tell me.
Is it close to completion? Once completed, is it a race by compiler
vendors to implement it and put the "new ansi C++ standard compliant"
sticker on their product? Or are they too concerned with other
technologies to give c++ that much attention... given the advances made
by Java and C#. (I say that because I get the impression that certain
vendors are investing heavily in other technologies while leaving the
other "unsexy" (C++) technologies behind) . i.e. C# and such like.

The last thing I heard there were hopes of having the next version out
sometime around the end of the decade, but someone else might know better.

Erik Wikström

 

[Grahamo]

Thanks for the reply,

given the advances made
by Java and C#. (I say that because I get the impression that certain
vendors are investing heavily in other technologies while leaving the
other "unsexy" (C++) technologies behind) . i.e. C# and such like.

Now, you're just trolling. Calling C++ unsexy is like saying that Cindy
Crawford is ugly [because she's been around for some time now].

You missed the point. Microsoft are far more deeply invested in C# than
they ever will be again in C++. Likewise Sun will always be more Java
than C++. C++ is not a "sexy" language these days.

As for Cindy, yes she is still sexy.

thanks for the reply.

G

 

[Ian]

Thanks for the reply,

given the advances made
by Java and C#. (I say that because I get the impression that certain
vendors are investing heavily in other technologies while leaving the
other "unsexy" (C++) technologies behind) . i.e. C# and such like.

Now, you're just trolling. Calling C++ unsexy is like saying that Cindy
Crawford is ugly [because she's been around for some time now].

You missed the point. Microsoft are far more deeply invested in C# than
they ever will be again in C++. Likewise Sun will always be more Java
than C++. C++ is not a "sexy" language these days.

I know for sure that one and probably both of the above are actively
involved with the C++ standards.

Ian

 

[Ian]

The reason I ask is that a large piece of code needs to be refactored
(major refactor) and I'm trying to see if it's worth availing of the
new c++ standard implementation (i.e. wait for it) or whether that's
going to be a while before it's available.

You are abusing the term refactor here, what you describe is a redesign,
not a refactor.

Ian

 

[ecky-l]

You missed the point. Microsoft are far more deeply invested in C# than

they ever will be again in C++. Likewise Sun will always be more Java
than C++. C++ is not a "sexy" language these days.

There will go at least 10 more years until the "reinventing-wheels"
strategy with this .net thing has more attendees and more know-how
developed than the classic languages. Until that, yo'll be more
productive with C++.
As for "sexy" - no programming language has to be "sexy", but useful
and reliable. If I want to have sexy things, I don't bother my computer
for a while ;-).


Eckhard

 

[Grahamo]

thanks Ian. Is replacing custom containers with STL containers a
refactor or a redesign issue?

G