Polymorphism Polymorphism
-
C++17 gives us std::variant<> which allows for a new form of stack-based runtime polymorphism.
C++ is now stealing language ideas from VB6?
-
C++17 gives us std::variant<> which allows for a new form of stack-based runtime polymorphism.
C++ is now stealing language ideas from VB6?
C++ is losing it's C++ness. Instead of a handful of powerful tools kept together by the strong minds of developers it's becoming a jungle of semi-useful scraps kept together by the fact that it has a good history.
DURA LEX, SED LEX GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP. -- TNCaver When I was six, there were no ones and zeroes - only zeroes. And not all of them worked. -- Ravi Bhavnani
-
C++ is losing it's C++ness. Instead of a handful of powerful tools kept together by the strong minds of developers it's becoming a jungle of semi-useful scraps kept together by the fact that it has a good history.
DURA LEX, SED LEX GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP. -- TNCaver When I was six, there were no ones and zeroes - only zeroes. And not all of them worked. -- Ravi Bhavnani
-
Easy solution: simply don't use the new features. Then, it's just the same as the old c++ ;)
hmmmm... a new version of "never change a running system"?
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
Easy solution: simply don't use the new features. Then, it's just the same as the old c++ ;)
Yes, of course :D some features are pretty nice though. When I will be able to switch from VS6 (yes, the 1998 one), and to do so I would have to rewrite a custom addin plus the brain of my boss, I will discover a whole new world of functionality. Including a functional STL...
DURA LEX, SED LEX GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP. -- TNCaver When I was six, there were no ones and zeroes - only zeroes. And not all of them worked. -- Ravi Bhavnani
-
C++ is losing it's C++ness. Instead of a handful of powerful tools kept together by the strong minds of developers it's becoming a jungle of semi-useful scraps kept together by the fact that it has a good history.
DURA LEX, SED LEX GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP. -- TNCaver When I was six, there were no ones and zeroes - only zeroes. And not all of them worked. -- Ravi Bhavnani
That's what I said in 2010 when C++11 (C++0x at the time) was hitting the big time. Three years later, I was working on a project which suddenly had to be compiled in VS 2008 and 2010. I was quite surprised at how much C++11 I'd adopted. Interestingly, the same thing happened with C++14 and C++1z (C++17), though in the latter two, finding workarounds proved a whole lot more painful (constexpr, type_traits, range based loops and static_assert are so useful, not to mention lambdas, thread, filesystem and even auto [makes dealing with iterators so much easier].)