Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by BoredomIsFun 144 days ago
> but it really does seem that trying to be the language for all possible and potential architectures might not be the right play for C++ in 202x.

Portability was always a selling point of C++. I'd personaly advise those who find it uncomfortable, to choose a different PL, perhaps Rust.
1 comments
LexiMax 144 days ago
> Portability was always a selling point of C++.

Judging by the lack of modern C++ in these crufty embedded compilers, maybe modern C++ is throwing too much good effort after bad. C++03 isn't going away, and it's not like these compilers always stuck to the standard anyway in terms of runtime type information, exceptions, and full template support.

Besides, I would argue that the selling point of C++ wasn't portability per se, but the fact that it was largely compatible with existing C codebases. It was embrace, extend, extinguish in language form.

link
BoredomIsFun 144 days ago
> Judging by the lack of modern C++ in these crufty embedded compilers,

Being conservative with features and deliberately not implementing them are two different thing. Some embedded compilers go through certification, to be allowed to be used producing mission critical software. Chasing features is prohibitively expensive, for no obvious benefit. I'd bet in 2030s most embedded compiler would support C++ 14 or even 17. Good enough for me.

link
LexiMax 144 days ago
> Being conservative with features and deliberately not implementing them are two different thing.

There is no version of the C++ standard that lacks features like exceptions, RTTI, and fully functional templates.

If the compiler isn't implementing all of a particular standard then it's not standard C++. If an implementation has no interest in standard C++, why give those implementations a seat at the table in the first place? Those implementations can continue on with their C++ fork without mandating requirements to anyone else.

link
BoredomIsFun 143 days ago
> If the compiler isn't implementing all of a particular standard then it's not standard C++.

C++ have historically been driven by practicalities, and violated standards on regular basis, when it deemed useful.

> Those implementations can continue on with their C++ fork without mandating requirements to anyone else.

Then they will diverge too much, like it happened with countless number of other languages, like Lisp.

link
LexiMax 141 days ago
> Then they will diverge too much, like it happened with countless number of other languages, like Lisp.

Forgive me if I am unconvinced that the existence of DSP-friendly dialects of C++ will cause the kinds of language fracturing that befell Lisp.

DSP workloads are relatively rare compared to the other kinds of workloads C++ is tasked with, and even in those instances a lot of DSP work is starting to be done on more traditional architectures like ARM Cortex-M.

link