U++ forum: Welcome to the forum

Re: C++ FQA [message #12605 is a reply to message #12604]

Sat, 10 November 2007 16:58

mdelfede
Messages: 1307
Registered: September 2007

Ultimate Contributor

luzr wrote on Sat, 10 November 2007 15:22

Well, I guess they are reluctant to make already very complex language even more complex. And many of these issues do not bring anything really new to the table. (but I would certailny liked better syntax sugar for "pick_", this is the only thing in C++ I seriously miss).

Uhmmm.. they already made huge changes with templates, at least from the beginning of C++ standards... and other stuffs. pick_, refcounts and properties would *not* break existing code, so I really don't understand why they're not inside... in particular, properties do belong to a good OO language, and give absolutely no problem to existing code.

Quote:

Well, but keep in mind that C++ *standard* is intended as multiplatform solution. It e.g. must not have anything in it preventing the use of language on platform that is only capable of working with 36 bit words...

What you demand is possible even now - there is nothing in C++ standard that would make it impossible for specific implementation.

I know, but it wouldn't be standard. __property construct was added by borland to his C++ Builder, and effectively simplified much code writing. Also __published properties were a very good addition, as they brought good RTTI inside classes and made easy to write RAD tools.

Take in mind that C++ object files are, IMHO, *not* standardized, in particular with respect to code mangling... M$ has his one, borland another one and I guess GCC again a different one. So, it's impossible to link objs made with different C++ compilers, which was indeed possible with plain C. I think that was the real big problem of Borland tools... M$ came later, made worse compilers and made object files totally incompatible with borland ones.... so people that wanted to write code linking with M$ libs *had* to go to M$ tools.
That's again a big miss of C++ standart. So, what prevents put in C++ standard a documented obj format WITH module support ? That I don't really understand. It could also be done keeping the compatibility with old obj format (at least, on one compiler....).

Quote:

Or you would be stuck with slow implementation and no way how to improve it...

Well, here you must agree that bringing refcounts and/or pick_ INSIDE the language would make it possible compile-level optimizations that now are not possible. Of course, if you have a bad compiler that's slow, but that belongs to many other stuffs too.

Ciao

Max

Report message to a moderator