Visit from Bjarne Stroustroup

My school as a part of a distinguished lecture series presentation had bjarne stroustroup come to speak about c++0x. I've been largely aloof from programming but I was really excited for this. He came and talked to us about the new features and the bureaucracy of the commitee. It was definitely inspiring.

I love the new features -- auto types and concepts are impressive to me, and I know even on this board I've talked about variadic templates and local template arguments before I knew of the planned improvements..I'm hyped on the new features. What do you guys think of the new deal?

Myself, I cannot wait for C++0x!
It features so many new wonderful features.
I can only hope someone implements them soon.

Forgive me, but I personally don't use templates very much, or really at all. I would be much more impressed with the addition of other features such as auto-expanded type support. The specification already defines 128 bit integers and floats, yet most compilers dont support them. It would be realatively trivial to support the automatic generation of code to support these larger types through software at least until they are supprted by hardware. For example, if I declared float128, the compiler should automatically generate code to handle a 128 bit float. But it should also handle float1024, float65536 etc. through the same feature. There is already hardware that supports 128 bit floating point (GPU's). This woudl ensure support for new hardware capabilities as they become available. This is of course something that would only benefit a small segment of the programming population, but then again, templates also only benefit a small segment of the population.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abachler

...but then again, templates also only benefit a small segment of the population.

---

Forgive me, but I find templates pretty much everywhere and very, very convenient. I think it is one of the most important features of C++.
Although, I would not mind standardized types that are of exact sizes such as int64, etc, and 128-bit types would not hurt either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

Forgive me, but I find templates pretty much everywhere and very, very convenient. I think it is one of the most important features of C++.

---

Yes, but abachler does have a point in that advanced template programmers are a minority, even though their work benefits the majority.

Oh. Well, templates is one of the features I heavily depend upon, so improvements there are very welcomed by me.

>> Although, I would not mind standardized types that are of exact sizes such as int64,
Well we get some of that in C++0x or so I've heard. stdint will finally be supported for C++ by the standard. As far as 128 bit floats, I don't think there is a problem in doing it so much as the standard nor its implementers should make an assumption on the part of the programmer. For example, you could dedicate sign bits, 62 bits to an exponent and the rest to the mantissa, but the programmer might want a longer mantissa (greater precision). Even if the standard didn't mandate the particulars (range requirements) I don't think it solves many problems that could arise in implementation of automatic type expansion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abachler

but then again, templates also only benefit a small segment of the population.

---

Wrong. For example, you could use templates to implement

Code:

---

template<int bits>
class floating {... };

---

and, with good specializations and good underlying libraries, get exactly what you're proposing.

Code:

---

floating<32> f32; // Maps to float
floating<64> f64; // Maps to double
floating<80> f80; // Maps to 80-bit long double, if available, or perhaps a truncating 128-bit long double
floating<128> f128; // Maps to 128-bit long double, if available, or perhaps SSE intrinsics
floating<1024> f1024; // Software emulation

---

Of course, you could also have

Code:

---

template <int mantissa_bits, int exponent_bits, bool denormals, bool signaling> class floating;

---

But of course you need very special hardware if you don't want most of these to be emulated.

Yes, it's work. But the great thing about templates is that it makes this stuff possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CornedBee

Wrong. For example, you could use templates to implement

Code:

---

template<int bits>
class floating {... };

---

---

Does that have any other advantages against

Code:

---

class floating(int bits){...};

---

but the one what it saves the floating-ctor from selecting the needed implementation?

Is a new C coming? :O
Is it then wise to learn C++, now that I'm at such a low stage, or should I wait for C++0x?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akkernight

Is a new C coming? :O
Is it then wise to learn C++, now that I'm at such a low stage, or should I wait for C++0x?

---

I wouldn't switch to a language that has been available for less than 5 years. I have a strange feeling this language will not be widely used in the near future. I think it will share the destiny with A++, B++, D++, E++ etc.

Furthermore - you've always got the universal response for any question on which language to learn:

The concepts are the same - learn to program well in one language, and you will be more prepared to program well in another language. I would keep learning C++ now and make the decision to learn C++0x later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pheres

Does that have any other advantages against

Code:

---

class floating(int bits){...};

---

but the one what it saves the floating-ctor from selecting the needed implementation?

---

Yes.
1) It's a compile-time constant.
2) It doesn't use memory.
3) It doesn't take cpu time to copy and fetch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akkernight

Is a new C coming? :O
Is it then wise to learn C++, now that I'm at such a low stage, or should I wait for C++0x?

---

No need to wait for C++0x. It adds new features to the C++ language, so you still need the base. Go forth and master that which already is!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maxorator

I wouldn't switch to a language that has been available for less than 5 years. I have a strange feeling this language will not be widely used in the near future. I think it will share the destiny with A++, B++, D++, E++ etc.

---

You think that C++ will fall into obscurity?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

Forgive me, but I find templates pretty much everywhere and very, very convenient. I think it is one of the most important features of C++.

---

I also don't hardley use templates, it's just that everytime I need to use them there's always another way of doing it. Far from the most important feature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maxorator

I wouldn't switch to a language that has been available for less than 5 years. I have a strange feeling this language will not be widely used in the near future. I think it will share the destiny with A++, B++, D++, E++ etc.

---

It's too early to say, I mean, how many C programmers do you think said the same thing about C++ when it first came out?

C++0x is not a new language. It's just an evolution of C++03.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yarin

I also don't hardley use templates, it's just that everytime I need to use them there's always another way of doing it. Far from the most important feature.

---

"Don't use templates" or "Don't write templates"?
If you don't use templates, then that means you don't use any of the STL, which is one of the biggest features of C++.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yarin

I also don't hardley use templates, it's just that everytime I need to use them there's always another way of doing it. Far from the most important feature.

---

I find that difficult to believe. You mean you never write any code that uses templates or write inefficient and duplicated code?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yarin

It's too early to say, I mean, how many C programmers do you think said the same thing about C++ when it first came out?

---

The amount of advantages C++0x has over C++ is very little. The amount of totally new features C++ has that weren't in C is a lot higher. And still C is still widely used 25 years later... (not only with embedded devices)

So, it may not die, but it certainly will take a lot of years for the industry to switch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

I find that difficult to believe. You mean you never write any code that uses templates or write inefficient and duplicated code?

---

Copy-paste isn't inefficient and it won't take much longer to compile either. And there's a very good alternative to templates - using pointers. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maxorator

The amount of advantages C++0x has over C++ is very little.

---

Are you kidding me?
C++0x has huge potential over C++03.
R-value references, static assert, explicit conversion operators, interface requirements, variadic templates, lambda expressions...

Quote:

---

The amount of totally new features C++ has that weren't in C is a lot higher. And still C is still widely used 25 years later... (not only with embedded devices)

---

Old habits die hard, I guess.

Quote:

---

So, it may not die, but it certainly will take a lot of years for the industry to switch.

---

Mostly I would say, is the fault of lacking libraries and solutions. Microsoft loves to tie all those things into its dot-crap-net framework instead of MFC or other native solutions.

Quote:

---

Copy-paste isn't inefficient and it won't take much longer to compile either. And there's a very good alternative to templates - using pointers. :p

---

And you call yourself a C++ programmer? :|

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cpjust

"Don't use templates" or "Don't write templates"?
If you don't use templates, then that means you don't use any of the STL, which is one of the biggest features of C++.

---

Okay, I misunderstood, so I use them, but I still wouldn't call it the most important feature.

Of course, cpjust didn't call them the most important feature either. He said, "one of the most important," which is probably true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

And you call yourself a C++ programmer? :|

---

Not really. I call myself a C programmer.

Well yeah, that explains your anti-C++ approach with C instead...
Don't back-talk templates... it's the best feature C++ has :/

This is exactly why I see so much "C+" code out there. :p