On 21 May 2014 14:51, Niall Douglas wrote:
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.
Fair enough, that engineer doesn't care in the slightest that C++0x drafts had threads and atomics and a memory model definition earlier ... the end result is that both C11 and C++11 have those features.
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,
Agreed.
and for that we need to reawaken the type export feature,
Some form of module support is probably necessary, and I *really* hope we'll get it in C++17.
Hence the constant comparison with C11. Does that make sense now?
It does, thanks!