I'm a little surprised nobody posted this, especially after Slashdot picked it up. The DDJ put up an interview with Stroustrup discussing the removal of concepts from C++0x. This in itself is kind of a big deal, if you've been following the 0x proposals. But there's a little section on the last page:

Quote:Even after cutting "concepts," the next C++ standard may be delayed. Sadly, there will be no C++0x (unless you count the minor corrections in C++03). We must wait for C++1x, and hope that 'x' will be a low digit.

Yes, C++0x just slipped its release date into at least 2010 and maybe later than that. Oops. P.S. If anybody recommends "C++0xA" I will beat you senseless.

Isn't the joke that "x" still means "any digit", but now it's a hex digit instead of a decimal digit?

So it's still "C++0x" where x is a, or b, or c...

I'm not really surprised myself. Concepts was a pretty big feature, and C++ is a design-by-committee language. It's really hard to make big changes in design-by-committee projects.

It's also not surprising that C++0x will be delayed now that concepts have been removed. So much of the draft assumed the presence of concepts.

Quote:Original post by Codeka
It's also not surprising that C++0x will be delayed now that concepts have been removed. So much of the draft assumed the presence of concepts.

As has been discussed on various forums (even in the DDJ article, I remember), the delay isn't due to removal of concepts – albeit work towards making concepts to the standard required time from the members, naturally. There's some discussion visible at The Rise and Fall of C++0x Concepts (ignore the author, see the comments) and on ACCU news group straight after Frankfurt meeting by some members who were there. The main point being that Pete Becker just reverts to the pre-concept document and applies the other changes. I remember seeing an estimate of two weeks for the work.

There has been discussion also on comp.lang.c++* and comp.std.c++ news groups, but I haven't been following these. I feel proper concurrency support is more important at this point. Related to this, a small plug if you allow, Antony Williams (the chap responsible of Boost.Threads also) asked for help in evaluating and testing his current implementation of the new C++ concurrency support. It was a while ago, but perhaps he still likes to see more people involved. Or perhaps some readers here are just interested (he has a book concerning the subject matter in the makings also).

Quote:Original post by Promit
I'm a little surprised nobody posted this, especially after Slashdot picked it up.

Likewise, as C++ and related is widely discussed here.

I wonder the longer term implications of this and if they are so problematic. VS2010 and gcc both seem to have unofficial support for numerous features still in the draft. In addition to concepts I would have liked better support for modularity, building etc. (i.e. modules). I'm not in interaction with C++ code bases daily these days and every time I do, the build model just feels so clunky.

[Edited by - Naurava kulkuri on July 24, 2009 6:26:45 AM]

Quote:Original post by loufoque

Quote:Me too, especially here.

Ah, I see I edited my post just when you quoted. :-) Not a big deal, I guess.

Quote:Original post by loufoque
This forum is not really the place where people code in modern C++, quite the opposite.

Perhaps many of the people are just getting their hands on and aren't that acquaintant with standard library concepts? Combined with the usual "tinkering" and concentrating early on to make "code fast", as far as I see, are contributing factors. I don't see problems with tinkering if one enjoys it. The more frequent posters here usually note quite vigorously those tinkeres to concentrate on more important matters if they seem to miss the point they're making. I'd like think it carries to their later careers so that people aren't tinkering in commercial projects and instead concentrate on getting maintainable code that is otherwise good enough for its purpose. :)

As an aside, I'm not that familiar with all the library things there are mainly because I've learnt C++ mostly before and around 2000 and they weren't that much around during that time period. I'm not posting that much code here, but if I did, there probably were a better way of doing things than my code. :-P

[Edited by - Naurava kulkuri on July 24, 2009 6:07:24 AM]

Quote:Original post by Naurava kulkuri
As an aside, I'm not that familiar with all the library things there are mainly because I've learnt C++ mostly before and around 2000 and they weren't that much around during that time period. I'm not posting that much code here, but if I did, there probably were a better way of doing things than my code. :-P

The C++ standard was proclaimed November 17, 1997. It was around in draft form for a couple of years before that, essentially unchanged (except for some minor wording an std::auto_ptr). The STL predates that by a few years yet again. I suspect the C++ standard library has been around longer than most of the posters here have been able to read. What was the excuse for not using it again?