Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #83789
| From | Manfred <noname@add.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c++ |
| Subject | Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" |
| Date | 2022-04-26 16:29 +0200 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <t48vji$1saj$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | <t47rhm$1v44$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t48d7a$u9o$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t48du6$18tr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
On 4/26/2022 11:27 AM, Juha Nieminen wrote: > Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >> C++ used to be a svelt , clean language. Now its rapidly turning in Javas >> brother with new huge APIs that no one asked for being added such as this. >> If learning an API is more effort than writing code to do the same thing >> yourself then the API should be binned. > > The same story repeats again and again. Not as far as I have seen. > > Back in the 90's the new C++ standard was criticized as being "too > complicated", "too inefficient", "too bloated", yada yada. After a time > most of these people stopped complaining. As far as I recall, at that time t standard was substantially the standardese version of Bjarne's book TC++PL (or, more precisely, Bjarne's book was the English version of the standard). I have not heard such criticism, but I'd say it may have been more about complexity of the wording of the standard, rather than its contents. > > Then C++11 came along, and people started complaining about how it's > "too complicated", "too bloated", contains too many features nobody > needs, yada yada, and how they would just stick to C++98 and not even > bother using C++11. > C++11 was a totally different story. C++ was a major change in the language (acknowledged by Bjarne himself as such), and it is understandable that with major change comes some skepticism. However, as far as I can see most of the C++ development world has acknowledged that all in all C++11 was an improvement. > Then C++17 came along, and people said the exact same thing, but this > time they would stick to C++11 and forget about C++17. C++17, on the other hand, is when criticism about excessive bloat of the language became dominant. > > Then C++20 came along, and once again people are telling the same thing. > Now C++17 is ok, but C++20 is too much. As far as I can see C++20 has one good new feature, and that is concepts - except for the fact that the name "concepts" is straight wrong for the feature, it should have been type requirements, or template requirements; but let's not be too picky. Most of the rest is unnecessary overhead, which deserves its critics. After all, Bjarne himself has decided to take some distance from the committee, as of recent. > > You know, the same type of people who thought that C++11 was too much > and that they would stick to C++98. I don't think it's the same kind of people. Look, the 2005 draft of the standard from cppreference is 871 pages, the 2011 draft is 1300 pages, and then growing and growing to a whopping 1800+ pages for C++20. That should say something. > > Will this same thing repeat over and over with every major standard > revision? After C++17, that is likely to happen, unless the committee takes some serious change in direction.
Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
"Performance of C++20's Ranges" Cholo Lennon <chololennon@hotmail.com> - 2022-04-26 01:13 -0300
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-26 09:15 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-04-26 09:27 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-04-26 16:29 +0200
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 18:45 -0700
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 11:42 +0200
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-04-26 11:11 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 13:31 +0200
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 06:46 -0700
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-27 08:20 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-04-27 08:40 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-27 15:12 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-04-27 16:09 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-27 16:21 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-04-29 16:15 -0700
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-30 16:00 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 19:03 +0200
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-04-27 11:12 -0400
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-04-28 06:45 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-04-27 06:30 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-04-28 23:57 +0200
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-04-29 06:07 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-04-29 16:28 -0700
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-05-02 05:01 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-05-10 07:36 -0700
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-04-26 11:28 -0400
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-04-26 18:13 +0200
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-26 16:24 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-04-26 12:48 -0400
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Cholo Lennon <chololennon@hotmail.com> - 2022-04-26 20:20 -0300
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-27 08:30 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-04-27 08:50 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 05:12 -0700
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-27 15:18 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 18:56 +0200
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-28 08:40 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-04-28 13:54 +0300
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 13:11 +0200
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-28 15:25 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 17:30 +0200
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-28 15:45 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 17:52 +0200
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-28 15:57 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 18:01 +0200
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-28 16:06 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 18:09 +0200
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-28 16:14 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 16:11 -0700
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 16:20 -0700
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-29 09:31 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-28 15:15 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 13:07 +0200
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-28 15:17 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 17:31 +0200
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-28 15:50 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 17:55 +0200
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-28 15:59 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 18:02 +0200
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-28 16:13 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 18:20 +0200
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-29 09:27 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-29 20:48 +0200
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-30 07:34 +0200
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-04-30 17:31 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-30 20:30 +0200
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-05-01 15:20 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 18:18 +0200
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-05-01 16:25 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-05-01 23:14 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 18:52 -0700
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-04-28 18:21 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-29 09:29 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-04-28 18:19 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 21:01 +0200
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 16:07 -0700
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-28 15:22 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-04-28 10:57 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-28 15:27 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> - 2022-04-28 09:26 -0700
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 17:07 +0200
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-27 15:54 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 18:35 +0200
csiph-web