Timeline for Why is C++ backward compatibility important / necessary?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 4, 2012 at 5:44 | comment | added | MarkJ | @Giorgio Your question: why can't the standard committee do X (in order to solve my problem A?) My comment: other answers show there are many drawbacks to doing X: and there are much better solutions to problem A anyway. IMHO I am on topic | |
| Apr 3, 2012 at 20:34 | comment | added | DeadMG | @Giorgio: The Standard will never, ever, drop backwards compatibility in significant ways. The only way to achieve this is to migrate to a new language. Your problem is irrelevant to this fact. | |
| Apr 3, 2012 at 20:07 | comment | added | Giorgio | @MarkJ: The topic of this question was "What are the technical and non technical difficulties with breaking backward compatibility" not "What are viable alternatives to breaking backward compatibility". I know there are alternatives but this is not the topic of the question. | |
| Apr 3, 2012 at 19:55 | comment | added | MarkJ | @Giorgio get an automatic style checking tool? | |
| Apr 3, 2012 at 17:53 | comment | added | Giorgio | @DeadMG: But C++11 is already a different language wrt to 1990-C++. I often get the impression that dropping backward compatibility would only mean recognizing a process that has already taken place. Or maybe we have to wait until C++15, but I think we are close. Just MHO. | |
| Apr 3, 2012 at 17:46 | comment | added | Giorgio | Our experience is that many developers will not follow certain restrictions unless they are imposed by the compiler and the team is too big to control each individual developer. | |
| Apr 3, 2012 at 17:43 | comment | added | Giorgio | @Ramhound: My problem is that I work in a project with more than 40 developers. Some use C-like style, some 1990-C++ style, some use more modern C++ style, and some are moving to C++11. Our code is like a bazaar and having written coding guidelines does not seem to help. | |
| Apr 3, 2012 at 17:10 | comment | added | DeadMG | @Giorgio: Removing all the redundant C features, and adding some of the new toys we could have if we didn't have to have them, would be equivalent to defining a new language. | |
| Apr 3, 2012 at 16:13 | comment | added | Ramhound | @Giorgio - There being support for those features adds no additional overhead to your program once you compile it. What do you care if it takes longer to compile? | |
| Apr 3, 2012 at 13:18 | comment | added | Giorgio | I was not thinking about developing a successor to C++ that should replace C++. Rather, I was thinking about keeping the current C++ semantics and syntax and removing features that are no longer considered good practices or do not add any extra functionality. E.g. removing the struct keyword, discouraging macros in favour of constants and const expr, and so on. | |
| Apr 3, 2012 at 8:22 | history | answered | DeadMG | CC BY-SA 3.0 |