Yes, C++ extended C with constructs to support object oriented programming natively, but no, it was not the first programming language to support object oriented programming natively.Originally Posted by Akkernight
You can read that interview with Stroustrup that I linked to. Nonetheless, note that C++0x is not a new programming language, but a new edition of the C++ standard.
Look up a C++ Reference and learn How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
Lambdas o.o? Will that make physics calculation and stuff easier and more like the real stuff ^^? Love doing physics, if I do it right, if I get it wrong and just can't figure it out, I almost tear my hair out :P
Currently research OpenGL
In this case lamdba refers to anonymous functions. The name is from lambda calculus, not physics.
Look up a C++ Reference and learn How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
Lambdas in C++0x allows you declare unnamed functions.
Like
I don't know what you get wrong with physics, so I cannot really say...Code:int array[] = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0 }; std::for_each(array, array + sizeof(array), [](int n) { std::cout << n << std::endl; });
C++0x is like oiling an older machine. Much of the new standard is maintenance related from what I can tell - it does something about C++'s warts, introduces some new features; some good, some bad.
C++ already has OOP. With the introduction of things like concepts, they're trying to introduce new types of abstraction. Abstraction is a programming tool in itself which helps make your programs express the algorithms they use to solve problems more clearly. As an obverse example, take a look at programs written in earlier versions of BASIC: very little abstraction meant that code was a pain to write and maintain.
Sorry if I'm going on a tangent but that seems to be C++0x's purpose. In regards to the new standards name, I don't think the compiler would care if they called it C++Pudding. Maybe that's what it should be!
A lot is maintenance, I would say, a lot is new. And a lot is welcome.
But even the new stuff is maintenance of a sort. Just like you add new features to a program as part of maintenance: you discovered issues with the software, now you're adding a new feature to make something that you really want to do possible or easier. C++0x is like that.
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
Perhaps. I suppose it is because the committee is lacking resources for a major overhaul? They're more looking for easy things to implement that does not require as much time or resources.
Hmm... This might sound stupid, 'cause I don't really know much :P but I got this results from accelerated C++
File size list vector
735 0.1 0.1
7,350 0.8 6.7
73,500 8.8 597.1
And those look really drastic to me, so will C++0x also speed things like vector up? make it faster and stuff :P
Those results are for inserting and erasing, correct me if I'm wrong :P
Currently research OpenGL
"If it ain't broke don't fix it"? I don't want C++ to suffer from feature creep. In fact, a lot of things were proposed, and many of those were dismissed. But the published opinions from the committee seems like something one should read for themselves than asking a particular person here.Perhaps. I suppose it is because the committee is lacking resources for a major overhaul? They're more looking for easy things to implement that does not require as much time or resources.
You are probably interpreting the results incorrectly. Different data structures have different trade offs.
Look up a C++ Reference and learn How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
In languages, it's not a new version if you break backwards compatibility, it's a new language (Python 3 notwithstanding). C++0x is a new version. They can't do anything drastic, because old code would stop working.
(Minor incompatibilities are fine and pretty much unavoidable.)
All the buzzt!
"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
I'm afraid you do not understand how the standard works.
They standard says how the implementation must work, but it is up to the compiler vendors themselves to create the implementation.
So either you are using the wrong solution to the problem or you are using a compiler with a slow standard library.
A new standard won't fix this.
Indeed. Usually a good motto if you don't want to break anything.
Of course, a major overhaul does not necessarily mean change all the interface and break everything, but adding a lot of time-consuming features, perhaps. Or along the lines of something like that.
Or maybe overhaul is the wrong word, but regardless. My point was that the committee is trying to take on easy tasks instead of big, complex ones due to somewhat limited resources.
Is it funding or simply not enough people to help out that's really the issue? Does anyone know?
Just so you people know, 'cause you seem to get it wrong :P but the book showed a test of why list is faster for some problems than vector
Currently research OpenGL
Depends on where and how it is used.
There is no ultimate solution to all problems. Therefore, there is usually a solution to a specific amount of problems.
Lists are good for insertion or deletion in the middle, but slow at traversing or iterating.
Vectors are good for linear storing of data and a dynamic array, but are very poor at insertion or deletion in the middle.
