Subject: Re: [boost] Boost and auto_ptr (was Boost 1.60.0 beta 1...)
From: Karen Shaeffer (shaeffer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-11-11 13:18:47
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 05:05:41PM +0000, Artyom Beilis wrote:
> Don't even try to compare gets with auto_ptr... One is HUGE security hole
> and another one some stuff that should be used carefully, it isn't more
> dangerous that strncpy and far less dangerous that sprintf that goes
> > It will have been two revs of the C++ standard between deprecation and
> > removal of auto_ptr, and it has been well known that auto_ptr was going to
> > be deprecated in C++0x years before that became C++11.
> > --
> When C++11 was released and how well it is supported by now?
> Ok when I started for example Boost.Locale few years ago No major widely
> available compiler had provided unique_ptr.
> I'm using Ubuntu LTS 14.4 (a distro one year old with long support) and gcc-4.8
> does not support regular expressions yet!
> At another place I'm using up-to-date RHEL 6.x... it comes with gcc-4.4 and guess
> what is C++11 support level is there?
> And yet no-major compiler (besides MSVC 2015 or something like) really support
> C++11 char16_t/char32_t (I mean all stuff including facets)
> There is HUGE difference between the standard release time and what world
> actually uses... MSVC does not even support properly C99 yet and it was released
> more than a decade ago and it is C much simpler language.
> So it would take a very long time until industry will move to C++11 and
> until all major main-stream compilers would have decent C++11 support.
While I appreciate your point of view, I believe it is too focused on your
own limited perspective. For example, Apple, Google, and Facebook are all
using C++11 extensively.
Here in Silicon Valley, the startup ecosystem is using c++11/c++14 almost
exclusively. They are using clang/llvm mostly, while quite a few others
are using the latest g++, which is currently gcc-5.x. The vast majority of
new jobs are created by the startup ecosystem. (Future boost releases should
be mindful of the tool chains being used to create most of the new jobs.)
> So removing very useful stuff that isn't really that bad and that is
> used in library interfaces (so its removal breaks APIs) it what is
> what Linus Torvalds would say "brain damaged" decision.
I worked with the linux kernel for quite a few years, before focusing on
C++11/14 and applications. It was a long standing policy of the kernel
community to break APIs when they were getting in the way of progress. And
they did break APIs quite a few times. Linus Torvalds says a lot of things.
I don't doubt your quote, but you can find many quotes of Linus, where he
was advocating breaking APIs. I don't believe injecting Torvald's quotes into
this discussion adds any value.
-- Karen Shaeffer Be aware: If you see an obstacle in your path, Neuralscape Services that obstacle is your path. Zen proverb
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk