The Sorry State of C++ Portability by Jeff Wofford
 

The Sorry State of C++ Portability by Jeff Wofford:
http://www.jeffwofford.com/?p=1102

Living on the bleeding edge...

Lynn

Re: The Sorry State of C++ Portability by Jeff Wofford
 

Thanks. I've been wondering about some of the
same things. I'm not sure if this will help me
figure out how to proceed, but it is still
interesting. He also has some interesting
articles about the Bible.

Re: The Sorry State of C++ Portability by Jeff Wofford
 

On Tue, 2012-10-30, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> The Sorry State of C++ Portability by Jeff Wofford:
> http://www.jeffwofford.com/?p=1102
>
> Living on the bleeding edge...

I don't know what /your/ angle it, but to me that article says
"Aargh! I choose to use a bleeding-edge revision of C++, and a
compiler I want to use doesn't do it all yet!"

It's wise to make sure you have tool support before you choose
your technology.

/Jorgen

--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .

Re: The Sorry State of C++ Portability by Jeff Wofford
 

On 10/30/2012 02:27 AM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> The Sorry State of C++ Portability by Jeff Wofford:
> http://www.jeffwofford.com/?p=1102

That article should have been called "The Sorry State of Microsoft's C++
Compiler".

Re: The Sorry State of C++ Portability by Jeff Wofford
 

This comes from a non-C++ dedicant, but what's up with people always
wanting more features and shortcuts when programming? Sounds like he's
spoiled. You can see by the ways he non-casually refers to his A.I. as
"non-trivial" that writing anything that isn't handled by some high
level mechanism is some sort of accomplishment. And I like high level
languages.

On 10/29/2012 06:27 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> The Sorry State of C++ Portability by Jeff Wofford:
> http://www.jeffwofford.com/?p=1102
>
> Living on the bleeding edge...
>
> Lynn

Re: The Sorry State of C++ Portability by Jeff Wofford
 

On Wednesday, 31 October 2012 03:37:34 UTC+2, Jason Benjamin wrote:
> This comes from a non-C++ dedicant, but what's up with people always
> wanting more features and shortcuts when programming? Sounds like he's
> spoiled. You can see by the ways he non-casually refers to his A.I. as
> "non-trivial" that writing anything that isn't handled by some high
> level mechanism is some sort of accomplishment. And I like high level
> languages.

I am not sure what you ask here? C++11? It is not shortcuts. C++11 did
leap majorly forward in languages usability and efficiency and safety
and usefulness and completeness of its standard library. Yes, it added
some half-ripe things too. Game A.I.? Non-moronic A.I. is essential
feature of non-boring computer game. Competing against game environment
is boring as soon you realize how to fool it. No wonder he is proud.
If he is saying that lack of support to variadic template parameter
lists in Microsoft compilers is really stopping him in his tracks then
yes, he *is* likely not engineer, perhaps just common breed blogger.

Re: The Sorry State of C++ Portability by Jeff Wofford
 

Lynn McGuire wrote:

> The Sorry State of C++ Portability by Jeff Wofford:
> http://www.jeffwofford.com/?p=1102

The title doesn't fit the article, which is only about how MS Visual Studio
fails to support C++11. And by now MS VS lagging behind, or MS dragging its
feet, shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.


Rui Maciel

Re: The Sorry State of C++ Portability by Jeff Wofford
 

On Thu, 2012-11-01, Rui Maciel wrote:
> Lynn McGuire wrote:
>
>> The Sorry State of C++ Portability by Jeff Wofford:
>> http://www.jeffwofford.com/?p=1102
>
> The title doesn't fit the article, which is only about how MS Visual Studio
> fails to support C++11. And by now MS VS lagging behind, or MS dragging its
> feet, shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

It surprised /me/, but maybe that's because I don't pay much attention
to what MS does. I was under the impression that they were "on the
bus" this time.

(Perhaps we've forgotten how old-fashioned long release cycles work,
now that we can have a new browser, Linux kernel, gcc, etc once a
week?)

/Jorgen

--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .

Re: The Sorry State of C++ Portability by Jeff Wofford
 

Jorgen Grahn wrote:

> It surprised /me/, but maybe that's because I don't pay much attention
> to what MS does. I was under the impression that they were "on the
> bus" this time.
>
> (Perhaps we've forgotten how old-fashioned long release cycles work,
> now that we can have a new browser, Linux kernel, gcc, etc once a
> week?)

I don't believe it has anything to do with long release cycles. For
example, although Microsoft directly participates in the revision processo
for the C standard for years now, the company even fails to support C99. If
you are the world's largest software company and you fail to support a
standard that you helped shape even after a decade has passed, and in the
process you've managed to churn out multiple incantations of an operating
system, it's quite clear that it is an unwillingness issue.


Rui Maciel

Re: The Sorry State of C++ Portability by Jeff Wofford
 

Am 10/30/12 2:27 AM, schrieb Lynn McGuire:
> The Sorry State of C++ Portability by Jeff Wofford:
> http://www.jeffwofford.com/?p=1102
>
> Living on the bleeding edge...
>
> Lynn

The author of this page states that "[...] variadic templates are
tremendously helpful for building scriptable C++ objects and
introspection systems, [...]". That's very interesting since the only
use cases for variadic templates that I have encountered so far deal
with a more sophisticated version of printf (as if C++ did not already
offer IOstreams for that very purpose). I'd be quite interested in how
variadic templates allow for introspection, but I'm afraid that the
author will not shared his insights with us.

Stuart