1

Topic: C ++ 14 vs a C ++ 17 and a C ++ 17 vs a C ++ 20

Evident comparing "was - became" some new features With ++ With ++ 14 vs With ++ 17 Cs ++ 17 vs a C ++ 20

2

Re: C ++ 14 vs a C ++ 17 and a C ++ 17 vs a C ++ 20

Hello, Skorodum, you wrote: S> Evident comparing "was - there was" some new features With ++ S> With ++ 14 vs With ++ 17 S> a C ++ 17 vs a C ++ 20 About yes! It is time to transform a C ++ in Perl

3

Re: C ++ 14 vs a C ++ 17 and a C ++ 17 vs a C ++ 20

Hello, Skorodum, you wrote: S> a C ++ 17 vs a C ++ 20 P.S. Please do not #define implicit explicit (false). Just Don't. Do Not. Not Do. Don't even Try.

4

Re: C ++ 14 vs a C ++ 17 and a C ++ 17 vs a C ++ 20

Hello, kov_serg, you wrote: _> About yes! It is time to transform a C ++ in Perl Why? Much become more considerable more readably

5

Re: C ++ 14 vs a C ++ 17 and a C ++ 17 vs a C ++ 20

Hello, Skorodum, you wrote: S> Hello, kov_serg, you wrote: _>> About yes! It is time to transform a C ++ in Perl S> Why? S> Much become more considerable becomes more readable than a C ++ more and more write only and all these  have purely academic origin so imports many which superfluous problems before was not.

6

Re: C ++ 14 vs a C ++ 17 and a C ++ 17 vs a C ++ 20

Hello, kov_serg, you wrote: _> the C ++ more and more write only becomes also all these  have purely academic origin so imports many which superfluous problems before was not. Here as it is beautifully possible to write a quite good example on  With ++: Higher order functions for ordinary a C ++ developers Even a language syntax the nobility not it is necessary. Simply you read as the text. And all this beauty free of charge, in sense is not present performance penalty in comparison with With. The Same year in style With to read where it is more difficult. Force good modern With ++ in possibility very expressively to use algorithms and data structures and  them to change if needed.

7

Re: C ++ 14 vs a C ++ 17 and a C ++ 17 vs a C ++ 20

Hello, Skorodum, you wrote: S> Here as it is beautifully possible to write a quite good example on  With ++: Higher order functions for ordinary a C ++ developers and than it is better? for_each (v.begin (), v.end (), [and] (auto&& x) {if (x.matches (...) && x.state_is (off)) {x.set_state (on);}});

8

Re: C ++ 14 vs a C ++ 17 and a C ++ 17 vs a C ++ 20

Hello, night beast, you wrote: NB> Hello, Skorodum, you wrote: S>> Here as it is beautifully possible to write a quite good example on  With ++: Higher order functions for ordinary a C ++ developers NB> and than it is better? It is better than alternative in style With, your example is same With ++ 11 code

9

Re: C ++ 14 vs a C ++ 17 and a C ++ 17 vs a C ++ 20

Hello, Skorodum, you wrote: NB>> and than it is better? S> it is better than alternative in style With, your example is same With ++ 11 code at me from 11 only a lambda. If on a cycle to rewrite, it will be all the same better to look than an example from presentation.

10

Re: C ++ 14 vs a C ++ 17 and a C ++ 17 vs a C ++ 20

Hello, Skorodum, you wrote: S>>> Here as it is beautifully possible to write a quite good example on  With ++: Higher order functions for ordinary a C ++ developers NB>> and than it is better? S> it is better than alternative in style With, your example is same With ++ 11 code And on a C it would look than not worse for (interface=interfaces;interface;interface->next) {if (((ip ^ interface-> ip) and mask) == 0) {interface_set_state (interface, ON);}} Here business in other, what you imply beauty? Here is how it is beautiful ++ to save a C a data package in zip archive? Or how  loudness of a signal in mp3 a file? Yes at least to read a config or to process parameters command ? Or to construct the schedule of function and to save it in pdf?

11

Re: C ++ 14 vs a C ++ 17 and a C ++ 17 vs a C ++ 20

Hello, Skorodum, you wrote: S> Hello, kov_serg, you wrote: _>> the C ++ more and more write only becomes also all these  have purely academic origin so imports many which superfluous problems before was not. S> here as it is beautifully possible to write a quite good example on  With ++: Higher order functions for ordinary a C ++ developers <br/> <span class ='lineQuote level1 '> S> </span> The further, the it becomes impossible to live without multiton standard libraries which from time to time all is more difficult more.

12

Re: C ++ 14 vs a C ++ 17 and a C ++ 17 vs a C ++ 20

Hello, kov_serg, you wrote: _> And on a C it would look than not worse _> _> for (interface=interfaces;interface;interface->next) {_> if (((ip ^ interface-> ip) and mask) == 0) {_> interface_set_state (interface, ON); _>} _>} _> 0. What even the cycle is written not correctly) The more standardly the code, the probability to be mistaken there is less, range-based algorithms and cycles are a standard. 1. A rigid sheaf of algorithm and a data structure, they cannot be changed separately. 2. Less than semantic check: accepting user types generally it is better than function, than easier operation over the same types (in your example interface can have a field ig the same type as well as ip and if the programmer  the compiler all on the former will work, or mix up IPv4 and IPv6). _> Here business in other, what you imply beauty? _> here is how it is beautiful ++ to save a C a data package in zip archive? RAII and  instead of infinite if (zip ()) {error = 123; GOTO error_exit;} Do the code where more pleasantly and more safely. Here is how time now I use miniz from  the code) _> Or how  loudness of a signal in mp3 a file? _> yes at least to read a config or to process parameters command ? Approximately as well as on With, only is more tasty. regexp and filesystem already a standard part. _> or to construct the schedule of function and to save it in pdf? I suspect that the task is solved 100 years ago S-shnoj by library and it suits all.

13

Re: C ++ 14 vs a C ++ 17 and a C ++ 17 vs a C ++ 20

Hello, T4r4sB, you wrote: TB> The further, the it becomes impossible to live without multiton standard libraries which from time to time all is more difficult more. On me so with regexp, filesystem and chrono to live in peace pure With ++ where is more cheerful Less .

14

Re: C ++ 14 vs a C ++ 17 and a C ++ 17 vs a C ++ 20

Would add already news from front it would be more interesting https://botondballo.wordpress.com/2018/ … june-2018/

15

Re: C ++ 14 vs a C ++ 17 and a C ++ 17 vs a C ++ 20

Hello, Skorodum, you wrote: S> 0. What even the cycle is written not correctly) The more standardly the code, the probability to be mistaken there is less, range-based algorithms and cycles are a standard. S> 1. A rigid sheaf of algorithm and a data structure, they cannot be changed separately. S> 2. Less than semantic check: accepting user types generally it is better than function, than easier operation over the same types (in your example interface can have a field ig the same type as well as ip and if the programmer  the compiler all on the former will work, or mix up IPv4 and IPv6). Yes-yes-yes. All it and transited still in With ++ 98 (Loki, Modern a C ++ Design, etc). Or even in 1994. Only all these branchy descriptions, to which 40 pages of slides are required to describe those many-storeyed constructions, and all for the sake of what? To write write-only the code on With ++? Or it is simple, that ? Lambdas it is fine. std:: any_of or std:: count_if too. Here it - already in a fire chamber.

16

Re: C ++ 14 vs a C ++ 17 and a C ++ 17 vs a C ++ 20

Hello, flt, you wrote: F> Lambdas it is fine. std:: any_of or std:: count_if too. Here it - already in a fire chamber. And as though you preferred to rewrite the given code?

17

Re: C ++ 14 vs a C ++ 17 and a C ++ 17 vs a C ++ 20

Hello, so5team, you wrote: S> Hello, flt, you wrote: F>> Lambdas it is fine. std:: any_of or std:: count_if too. Here it - already in a fire chamber. S> and as though you preferred to rewrite the given code? Here a problem not in the given code. When you put a rivet you can invent many different methods. Thus you can make the various tool for setting of this rivet and prove that it the best. But when you should fulfill connection in which hundred thousand such rivets, here there are absolutely other problems. And so new Cs ++ polish rivets.

18

Re: C ++ 14 vs a C ++ 17 and a C ++ 17 vs a C ++ 20

Hello, Skorodum, you wrote: S> Evident comparing "was - there was" some new features With ++ S> With ++ 14 vs With ++ 17 S> a C ++ 17 vs a C ++ 20 Yes, good links, too meditate over them!

19

Re: C ++ 14 vs a C ++ 17 and a C ++ 17 vs a C ++ 20

Hello, Skorodum, you wrote: _>> About yes! It is time to transform a C ++ in Perl S> Why? S> Much become more considerable it is necessary So to study more readably, to be strained... Not, I agree with kov_serg, in sense, I UNDERSTAND it. ("I understand you ()") With ++ - not the simple language was and in 98th variant, and here STILL extensions. And STILL features. All also is necessary the nobility. And old not  even. Well though trigraphs fucking threw out.

20

Re: C ++ 14 vs a C ++ 17 and a C ++ 17 vs a C ++ 20

Hello, kov_serg, you wrote: _> When you put a rivet you can invent many different methods. Thus you can make the various tool for setting of this rivet and prove that it the best. _> but when you should fulfill connection in which hundred thousand such rivets, here there are absolutely other problems. And so new Cs ++ polish rivets. To consider analogies it is not interesting. If you do not like code samples on the modern C ++ show, as though you wanted them to see. Then can more subject talk turns out.

21

Re: C ++ 14 vs a C ++ 17 and a C ++ 17 vs a C ++ 20

Hello, MasterZiv, you wrote: MZ> With ++ - not the simple language was and in 98th variant, and here STILL extensions. MZ> and STILL features. All also is necessary the nobility. And old not  even. MZ> it is good though trigraphs fucking threw out. Which that , is possible not so actively as it would be necessary. If someone likes to walk in bast shoes, not  them in shoes/boots/krossovki violently. Probably the compromise can be reached by means of Profiles.