Stroustrup Talk on C++0x

This is a discussion on Stroustrup Talk on C++0x within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; It's unfortunate that we won't be able to post the video of the talk like we do for the rest ...

  1. #16
    C++ Developer XSquared's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    2,718
    It's unfortunate that we won't be able to post the video of the talk like we do for the rest of the events that we run, because it was definitely a neat talk.
    Naturally I didn't feel inspired enough to read all the links for you, since I already slaved away for long hours under a blistering sun pressing the search button after typing four whole words! - Quzah

    You. Fetch me my copy of the Wall Street Journal. You two, fight to the death - Stewie

  2. #17
    Software Developer jverkoey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    University of Waterloo
    Posts
    1,904
    Why can't you guys post it?

  3. #18
    C++ Developer XSquared's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    2,718
    Turns out that Texas A&M won't allow videos of their profs lectures to be posted online, and apparently this type of lecture is included in that rule.
    Naturally I didn't feel inspired enough to read all the links for you, since I already slaved away for long hours under a blistering sun pressing the search button after typing four whole words! - Quzah

    You. Fetch me my copy of the Wall Street Journal. You two, fight to the death - Stewie

  4. #19
    l'Anziano DavidP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Plano, Texas, United States
    Posts
    2,738
    Smart pointers?
    I did not see anything about smart pointers being a part of the new standard but I admit I did not read the all of the text so it might be in there.
    Yeah smart pointers are mentioned in there (the wikipedia article i mean). Near the top actually:

    Despite this, many people insist that C++ include some mechanism for safe management of the pointer. For this reason, the new standard will provide support for smart pointers, but only through the standard library.
    I had a couple of questions. Here is a quote from the Wikipedia article:

    The C++ standard committee plans to introduce some tools for multiprocessing and multithreaded programming.

    At this stage, full support for multiprocessing appears too dependent on the operating system used, and too complex to be resolved only through an extension of the core language. The common understanding is that multiprocessing support shall be created via a high-level library instead of a low-level library (with potentially dangerous synchronization primitives), as the Committee's goal is not to motivate programmers to use a potentially dangerous standard library instead of a secure but non-standardized library.
    I understand their logic here...but if they make a high level library, the threads won't have very high priority and won't be very powerful, true?

    Another quote:

    Atomic operations

    Often, a thread needs to perform a task without being interrupted. For example, a thread might require exclusive access to a global variable or real-time access to a peripheral.

    To perform such an atomic operation, a new keyword atomic has been proposed
    Could this atomic key word be used in place of mutex locks and semaphores? If the thread in execution cannot be interrupted, then basically it has locked out all other threads from executing until it finishes....although it is not completely the same as a mutex lock, it can have a similar effect.
    My Website

    "Circular logic is good because it is."

  5. #20
    Cat without Hat CornedBee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    8,893
    ad Threads: that's news to me. Right now, the proposals to the committee are definitely headed towards low-level threading. Still library-based, but low-level.

    ad Atomic: Haven't seen the proposal for this atomic keyword. If it works as described, it would simply be a single, global mutex. In other words, completely useless for most multi-threaded programs.
    All the buzzt!
    CornedBee

    "There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
    - Flon's Law

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. What one line unix talk combo generates the following....
    By Overworked_PhD in forum Tech Board
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-20-2008, 08:48 AM
  2. US attack in Iraq (WAR Talk)
    By zahid in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 298
    Last Post: 05-07-2003, 01:00 AM
  3. Interview with Bjarne Stroustrup "C++ a joke"
    By novacain in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-31-2003, 11:55 PM
  4. Who wants to talk on AIM?
    By Death Wish in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-05-2002, 07:29 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21