Re: Dropping C++03 support (again)

From: Vinnie Falco (vinnie.falco_at_[hidden])
Date: 2023-02-17 17:49:36

On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 9:38 AM Dominique Devienne <ddevienne_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> ...it sure wasn't created based on C++11 facilities. The combination of modules, concepts, coroutines, asio,
> etc... was impressive. I certainly can't use C++23 at work right now, I'm limited to C++17 for now,
> which is already newer than many. Asio w/o coroutines is just painful IMHO, for example.
> Compile times are painful, and modules seem to genuinely help, when used correctly.
> So there's lots of value in using the new moderner modern C++ facilities too, beyond C++11.

Yes, 100% ! But... we're not talking about limiting ourselves to
C++11, we are talking about *supporting* C++11. Libraries can always
use newer C++ features if they want to. For example I provide
deduction guides when compiling under C++17 and later. An Beast comes
with examples that use co_await. "Supporting C++11" just means that
the release managers will test the libraries that claim to work under
C++11, using C++11 compilers.

A library is still free to require C++14 or any later version of C++
if it wants to. I support C++11 because it does not cost me much to do
so, and because there are still a considerable number of users who
need it. That number is shrinking, and when it gets too small I will
probably switch to C++14 or C++17 as my minimum supported version. But
I will not do it every 3 years just because that's how the standards
committee does it. I will do it when the cost/benefit analysis favors
it.

Thanks