undefined | Better HN

0 pointstialaramex1y ago0 comments

I think the existence of COBOL-2023 actually suggests that it's not merely possible that in effect C++ 26 is the last C++ but that maybe C++ 17 was (in the same sense) already the last C++ and we just didn't know it.

After all doubtless COBOL's proponents did not regard COBOL-85 as the last COBOL - from their point of view COBOL-2002 was just a somewhat delayed further revision of the language that people had previously overlooked, surely now things were back on track. But in practice yeah, by the time of COBOL-2002 that's a dead language.

0 comments

pjmlp1y ago

Fully agree, because for the use cases of being a safer C, and keeping stuff like LLVM and GCC running, that is already good enough.

From my point of view C++26 is going to be the last one that actually matters, because too many are looking forward to whatever reflection support it can provide, otherwise that would be C++23.

There is also the whole issue that past C++17, all compilers seem like a swiss cheese in language support for the two following language revisions.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointstialaramex1y ago0 comments

0 comments

pjmlp1y ago

Fully agree, because for the use cases of being a safer C, and keeping stuff like LLVM and GCC running, that is already good enough.

From my point of view C++26 is going to be the last one that actually matters, because too many are looking forward to whatever reflection support it can provide, otherwise that would be C++23.

There is also the whole issue that past C++17, all compilers seem like a swiss cheese in language support for the two following language revisions.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse