Re: [boost] Foundational vs non-foundational libraries (was: Re: Thoughts on Boost v2)

Subject: Re: [boost] Foundational vs non-foundational libraries (was: Re: Thoughts on Boost v2)
From: Jonathan Wakely (jwakely.boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-21 10:07:09

On 21 May 2014 14:51, Niall Douglas wrote:
> On 21 May 2014 at 13:53, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>> I still think the comparisons with C11 aren't relevant and don't help
>> make your point.
>
> Yeah, I should explain that.
>
> One of the central tenets of my presentation at C++ Now and its
> accompanying position paper is that C++ 11/14 does not deliver much
> useful to its use case as THE systems programming language over C11.
> I posited that if you looked at the new features in C++ 11/14 which
> C11 does not have from the perspective of a Python runtime engineer,
> you saw almost zero improvements.

Fair enough, that engineer doesn't care in the slightest that C++0x
drafts had threads and atomics and a memory model definition earlier
... the end result is that both C11 and C++11 have those features.

> I followed that claim with a further claim that stopping deliberately
> ignoring C++ ABI management would be a major tick in favour of C++ as
> the future systems programming language,

Agreed.

> and for that we need to
> reawaken the type export feature,

Some form of module support is probably necessary, and I *really* hope
we'll get it in C++17.

> Hence the constant comparison with C11. Does that make sense now?

It does, thanks!