C++17 Is Near, A Look At The New Features

[phoronix]

Phoronix: C++17 Is Near, A Look At The New Features

Reports out over the weekend indicate that C++17 is "done" as the next version of the C++ ISO standard...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=CPP-17-Feature-Look

[discordian]

That link is not correct, many of these features aren`t in C++17 (mainly unhappy about missing concepts and modules): https://isocpp.org/std/status
Wikipedia is more explicit, but not sure if fully up-to-date: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2B17

I see those new standards as great, but they also cause much pain if you actually use the advanced features in editors. eclipse just recently got usable with C++11, the indexer would often crash with C++11 code before.

Once concepts and modules are available in C++, I can`t wait re-implement redox in a proper, modern language!

[cj.wijtmans]

That link is not correct, many of these features aren`t in C++17 (mainly unhappy about missing concepts and modules): https://isocpp.org/std/status
Wikipedia is more explicit, but not sure if fully up-to-date: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2B17

I see those new standards as great, but they also cause much pain if you actually use the advanced features in editors. eclipse just recently got usable with C++11, the indexer would often crash with C++11 code before.

Once concepts and modules are available in C++, I can`t wait re-implement redox in a proper, modern language!

there really isnt a good C++ editor out there. except for paid ones ms studio and clion.

[Steffo]

I see those new standards as great, but they also cause much pain if you actually use the advanced features in editors. eclipse just recently got usable with C++11, the indexer would often crash with C++11 code before.

Did you try QtCreator? I can only recommend it. Very fast and stable!

Once concepts and modules are available in C++, I can`t wait re-implement redox in a proper, modern language!

What is wrong with Rust?

[discordian]

there really isnt a good C++ editor out there. except for paid ones ms studio and clion.

I don`t know about clion, but MSVC is good... aslong as you let it handle everything. As soon as you want to handle some Makefile or CMake based builds, it will cause significant trouble.
Yeah, I am not too happy about the state of IDEs either, if you need some good crossplatform (other OS, or no OS) and hardware debugging support you will likely end up with eclipse, or something based on it.

Someone should pay me to write one, using the LLVM / Clang Libs, I`d be interested in doing that =)

[discordian]

Did you try QtCreator? I can only recommend it. Very fast and stable!

Not extensible enough (hardware debugging?)

What is wrong with Rust?

Dunno, but the constant nonsensical hype comparing it to 30 years old C is bugging me.

[Steffo]

Dunno, but the constant nonsensical hype comparing it to 30 years old C is bugging me.

Criticism should be based on facts...

[cen1]

QtCreator is good enough once you get used to it, still not on the same level as Visual Studio tho. That is the one thing that Microsoft really has nailed down. As for C++17, I guess I might start using some of the features in 5 years.

C++ is becoming so powerful and feature rich that it gets intimidating.

[carewolf]

QtCreator is good enough once you get used to it, still not on the same level as Visual Studio tho. That is the one thing that Microsoft really has nailed down. As for C++17, I guess I might start using some of the features in 5 years.

C++ is becoming so powerful and feature rich that it gets intimidating.

Yeah.. I see

auto sum(Args&&....args) {
return (args + ... + 0);
}

And think Aghhh&&... too much black magic. I repel you devil!

Though you do look kind of sexy.. and convinient..

[M@yeulC]

Dunno, but the constant nonsensical hype comparing it to 30 years old C is bugging me.

Then why compare it with a programming language that doesn't even exist yet?

I am personally tired of C++ and its constructs. They seem highly artificial and get in your way most of the time. The set of rules to remember is just enormous! I personally prefer to use it as "C with classes" (or a well-defined subset to agree on during a project). That's probably not the best use of it, but at least the code stays understandable.
That's one of the reasons why I started to learn Rust: most of those features are in *by design*, and it doesn't have to carry its backwards-compatibility burden.

I know very few developers (if any) that knows every feature (or rule) of the language. And I am not sure about you, but I usually need to know exactly what my tools are capable of to be effective with them.

Sorry for the small rant...