On Tuesday, 29 May 2018 at 23:55:07 UTC, Dave Jones wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 May 2018 at 05:29:00 UTC, Ali wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 May 2018 at 03:56:05 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky
wrote:
It seems C++ is following the road of PL/I, which is growing
language way beyond the point anyone can understand or
implement all of it.
A key line from this paper
We now have about 150 cooks; that’s not a good way to get a
tasty and balanced meal.
I don't think Bjarne is against adding feature to C++, or even
constantly adding feature
he even admits to support some of the features he mention in
his list
I think he is worried about
1. the huge number of features being targeted at once
2. the features coming from different independent teams,
making them less likely to be coherent
Which is ironic considering...
Ken Thomson : " Stroustrup campaigned for years and years and
years, way beyond any sort of technical contributions he made
to the language, to get it adopted and used. And he sort of ran
all the standards committees with a whip and a chair. And he
said “no” to no one. He put every feature in that language that
ever existed. It wasn’t cleanly designed—it was just the union
of everything that came along. And I think it suffered
drastically from that."
Donald Knuth : "Whenever the C++ language designers had two
competing ideas as to how they should solve some problem, they
said "OK, we'll do them both". So the language is too baroque
for my taste."
A dysregulation of caution is more the rule than the exception in
modern times. People say yes when they should have said no, and
then after the mess becomes evident in reaction to it they say no
when they should be saying yes (in response to efforts to clear
things up). Viz the response before and after the credit crisis.
