On Thursday, 21 May 2015 at 23:28:32 UTC, weaselcat wrote:
On Thursday, 21 May 2015 at 17:36:00 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
https://www.quora.com/What-does-Bjarne-Stroustrup-think-about-different-programming-languages
The C++ standard committee already reviewed static_if
IIRC Andrei and Walter said they were being incredibly unfair.
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/[email protected]#post-cdgzdesltjefjvnjbspk:40forum.dlang.org
pretty long thread on it if you want to dig through it.
And I'll end my post with an excerpt from the ISOCPP paper, and
IMO the reason C++ is the way it is:
Being a new and realtively simple-to-use new feature,
static_if would un-
doubtedly be used by many who have no need for the relatively
small increme-
natal improvement in performance offered.
I don't claim to be a language guru, but I couldn't make any
sense of that 'considered' paper (static if) even when I squinted
and looked at it funny. Fair maiden lives an exciting life in
the big city, and only now decides to be more discerning?
As a student of affect and its manifestation in language it
seemed to make perfect sense though.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780124160088000115
Still, I tried not to be too harsh, because it (C++) was in many
ways an admirable achievement, and who am I to have the expertise
to be sure. On the other hand, one cannot escape the need to
form judgements, and I figured if I got it completely wrong then
somebody would certainly put me right.
Thanks for the link - will take a look.
Laeeth.
