Stroustrup Says New C++ Standard Delayed Until 2010 Or Later

Stroustrup Says New C++ Standard Delayed Until 2010 Or Later 501

Posted by timothy on Thursday July 23, 2009 @02:48PM from the esperanto-wasn't-built-in-a-day dept.

wandazulu writes "At the end of an article written by the creator of C++, where he talks about removing a feature from the new C++ standard, he drops a bombshell: The new C++ standard (typically referred to as C++0x) has been delayed until 2010 or later. What does this mean? No new C++ features like threads, proper enum classes, or hash tables. C++0x is dead, long live C++1x!"

Stroustrup Says New C++ Standard Delayed Until 2010 Or Later

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Search 501 Comments Log In/Create an Account

Comments Filter:

Namespace (Score:5, Funny)

by Quiet_Desperation ( 858215 ) writes: on Thursday July 23, 2009 @02:53PM (#28798423)

C++0x
Yes, well, that just rolls off the tongue, doesn't it?
Maybe he can get one of those hieroglyphs like Prince.

C++0A (Score:5, Funny)

by gr8_phk ( 621180 ) writes: on Thursday July 23, 2009 @02:55PM (#28798451)

Or C++0x0A no need to change the name.

Well, it could... (Score:5, Funny)

by Petersko ( 564140 ) writes: on Thursday July 23, 2009 @02:56PM (#28798461)

"C++0x... Yes, well, that just rolls off the tongue, doesn't it?"

Well, it does if you just pronounce it "Cocks".

in related news... (Score:5, Funny)

by cowdung ( 702933 ) writes: on Thursday July 23, 2009 @02:57PM (#28798493)

The latest version of Cobol (eagerly expected by 6 people) will also be delayed till January 2011.

Buffer overflow (Score:2, Funny)

by tomasd ( 1294992 ) writes: on Thursday July 23, 2009 @03:02PM (#28798563)

There will be buffer overflow after C++0xFF

Re:C++0A (Score:4, Funny)

by joss ( 1346 ) writes: on Thursday July 23, 2009 @03:07PM (#28798629) Homepage

Actually, that's what they're doing, its not a joke [my money's on C++0b though]

Re:C++0A (Score:3, Funny)

by Unoriginal_Nickname ( 1248894 ) writes: on Thursday July 23, 2009 @03:09PM (#28798661)

God only knows.
My money's on C++xx

Re:in related news... (Score:3, Funny)

by oldhack ( 1037484 ) writes: on Thursday July 23, 2009 @03:10PM (#28798677)

God damn it!

Re:How about a REAL C++ feature.... (Score:3, Funny)

by Anonymous Coward writes: on Thursday July 23, 2009 @03:17PM (#28798781)

Someone give grandpa his oatmeal.

Thats a mouthful (Score:5, Funny)

by Demonantis ( 1340557 ) writes: on Thursday July 23, 2009 @03:22PM (#28798871)

C++0x is a goofy name no wonder no one wants to work hard on it. How would you like that on your resume. C+=2 is much more consistent with the language and is much easier to read.

Re:Well, it could... (Score:1, Funny)

by Steneub ( 1070216 ) writes: on Thursday July 23, 2009 @03:27PM (#28798943)

I guess in your case though it sort of rolls on to the tongue.

Re:Well, it could... (Score:5, Funny)

by Bemopolis ( 698691 ) writes: on Thursday July 23, 2009 @03:27PM (#28798955)

If the cock rolls off your tongue you're doing it wrong.

Mod parent up... (Score:4, Funny)

by argent ( 18001 ) writes: <peter@slashdot.2 ... m ['.ta' in gap]> on Thursday July 23, 2009 @03:35PM (#28799061) Homepage Journal

On the whole, I'd rather code in Ratfor.

Ye canno' change the laws of physics... (Score:4, Funny)

by frank_adrian314159 ( 469671 ) writes: on Thursday July 23, 2009 @03:43PM (#28799181) Homepage

They can't release a new standard until they figure out a way to keep the language from collapsing under its own weight, forming a black hole that would destroy the solar system.

Re:in related news... (Score:5, Funny)

by clintp ( 5169 ) writes: on Thursday July 23, 2009 @03:44PM (#28799199)

No worries. C++1x will still be out before Perl 6.

Re:Who cares now? (Score:5, Funny)

by Tanktalus ( 794810 ) writes: on Thursday July 23, 2009 @03:50PM (#28799281) Journal

There are two basic problems with your code. First, there are unbalanced parenthesis. Second, this is a thread about C++. Not Perl. Next time, be more careful. Thanks.

Re:Namespace (Score:5, Funny)

by Zan Lynx ( 87672 ) writes: on Thursday July 23, 2009 @04:00PM (#28799389) Homepage

No. Obviously it is C++0xa.

Re:Namespace (Score:3, Funny)

by ByOhTek ( 1181381 ) writes: on Thursday July 23, 2009 @04:10PM (#28799513) Journal

You forgot C-Pox, what you get, hopefully as a kid and not an adult.

Re:Why this is bad (Score:3, Funny)

by oldhack ( 1037484 ) writes: on Thursday July 23, 2009 @04:30PM (#28799789)

C++:
You can program it like assembly.
You can program it like FP.
They should bring Larry Wall into the committee and things will really get cooking. Imagine the awesome possibilities.

Re:C++0A (Score:5, Funny)

by Wildclaw ( 15718 ) writes: on Thursday July 23, 2009 @04:52PM (#28800081)

My big question.
The original demonic summoning of the C++ spec was done using a piece of the tower of babel, a succubus and 2 top laywers arguing over who shouldn't be sacrificed. What ingredients were they using this time, and why did it fail?

Re:Thats a mouthful (Score:1, Funny)

by Anonymous Coward writes: on Thursday July 23, 2009 @05:44PM (#28800719)

I use C<<=1

What's with the back(s)lash? (Score:3, Funny)

by jonaskoelker ( 922170 ) writes: <jonaskoelkerNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Thursday July 23, 2009 @05:48PM (#28800739)

Or, lack of a proper lambda.
I think \bigger problems
Is that backslash some kind of Haskell joke?

Re:Thats a mouthful (Score:1, Funny)

by Anonymous Coward writes: on Thursday July 23, 2009 @05:58PM (#28800843)

I prefer
c+++=1;

Re:Namespace (Score:3, Funny)

by chivesandbonbon ( 1544721 ) writes: on Thursday July 23, 2009 @08:20PM (#28802229)

Looks like a dead fish.

Re:Well, it could... (Score:3, Funny)

by Darinbob ( 1142669 ) writes: on Thursday July 23, 2009 @08:26PM (#28802283)

No, the pluses are pronounced "up". As in "cocks up".

Re:Namespace (Score:3, Funny)

by vikstar ( 615372 ) writes: on Thursday July 23, 2009 @08:30PM (#28802317) Journal

C++0++x

Re:How about a REAL C++ feature.... (Score:0, Funny)

by Overly Critical Guy ( 663429 ) writes: on Friday July 24, 2009 @01:26AM (#28803791)

Not only are you completely flat-out wrong about "98%" of OpenOffice being C++, you also use the phrase "Bzzzt wrong," which makes you obnoxious.

C++ 2010 is a great leap forward. (Score:3, Funny)

by Jesus_666 ( 702802 ) writes: on Friday July 24, 2009 @09:39AM (#28806227)

Actually, this is part of a bigger shift in the C++ development community. From now on, a new C++ core edition will be released each year, with names in the format "C++ <year>". C++ 2010 (or C10 for short) will also contain a major overhaul of the C++ rules, intended to make it so that user's guesses about how the language works will most likely be correct. Here are some of them:

- The long and short keywords are now #defined as static. This fixes issues with respect to variables using these keywords going out of scope before all functions using them have resolved. It also keeps them from being used more than once for the same variable.
- Some of the terminology is changed. "to declare" is replaced with "to put on the battlefield"; "to free" is replaced with "to send to the exile" (or "to exile" for short). This is to make the language less confusing for new users. Also, functions are no longer "called" but "evoked", bringing back some terminology from the early days of the franchise.
- Local variables will no longer be exiled when a block ends. This mechanic has frustrated many new users (as almost nobody can tell without looking it up where a block begins or ends) and thus the developers have removed it. They are aware that this breaks some peoples' coding styles but really think it improves the language.
- Local variables no longer use the stack. The developers felt that putting local variables on the stack could create unintuitive situations and thus moved them to the heap.

All in all C10 will be the best version of C++ ever. Prerelease events will be held shortly.

There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.

Stroustrup Says New C++ Standard Delayed Until 2010 Or Later 501

Stroustrup Says New C++ Standard Delayed Until 2010 Or Later More Login

Stroustrup Says New C++ Standard Delayed Until 2010 Or Later

Namespace (Score:5, Funny)

C++0A (Score:5, Funny)

Well, it could... (Score:5, Funny)

in related news... (Score:5, Funny)

Buffer overflow (Score:2, Funny)

Re:C++0A (Score:4, Funny)

Re:C++0A (Score:3, Funny)

Re:in related news... (Score:3, Funny)

Re:How about a REAL C++ feature.... (Score:3, Funny)

Thats a mouthful (Score:5, Funny)

Re:Well, it could... (Score:1, Funny)

Re:Well, it could... (Score:5, Funny)

Mod parent up... (Score:4, Funny)

Ye canno' change the laws of physics... (Score:4, Funny)

Re:in related news... (Score:5, Funny)

Re:Who cares now? (Score:5, Funny)

Re:Namespace (Score:5, Funny)

Re:Namespace (Score:3, Funny)

Re:Why this is bad (Score:3, Funny)

Re:C++0A (Score:5, Funny)

Re:Thats a mouthful (Score:1, Funny)

What's with the back(s)lash? (Score:3, Funny)

Re:Thats a mouthful (Score:1, Funny)

Re:Namespace (Score:3, Funny)

Re:Well, it could... (Score:3, Funny)

Re:Namespace (Score:3, Funny)

Re:How about a REAL C++ feature.... (Score:0, Funny)

C++ 2010 is a great leap forward. (Score:3, Funny)

Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.

Slashdot Top Deals

Slashdot