On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 12:18 PM, torbenh <[email protected]> wrote: > classic C++ and "modern c++" are two pairs of shoes. > if your afraid of writing templates. modern c++ is not for you.
I'm puzzled as to why templates should be considered "modern" these days, but never mind. My very mundane point is just that (even without considering C++0x) C++ is a big enough language that many quite different styles of expression in it are commonplace. You had a toy example in another email that summed the elements in a series -- think how many different ways there already are to write that. An average, competent C++ developer might find it easier to read code in a totally different language, than C++ written by an equally competent developer with a different background. And on the whole, the more you try to write really efficiently in a particular style of the language, the more likely you are to alienate other developers. So my complaint is about reading, not writing. Maybe the situation can improve, even as the language and library continue to expand. It depends on whether individual new features are compelling enough to coalesce the interests of many different sorts of developers and draw them away from the alternatives. For example, the functor-based stuff in the "classic" STL was clearly not compelling enough (increasing fragmentation). But some of the examples you have given might be. Chris _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
