Stroustrup on C++0x + JSF++ coding standard

[so]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 20:02:58 +0300, dsimcha <dsimcha at yahoo.com> wrote:

> == Quote from Sean Kelly (sean at invisibleduck.org)'s article
>> And with all the legacy code, the crufty old
>> approach to doing things will stick around for a Long Time Yet.  Still,
>> if D isn't an option, at least 0x eases some of the pain of using C++.
>
> Exactly how I feel about C++1x.  It adds a lot of (though far from all)  
> the
> interesting features of D.  However, I can't stand the crufty old way of  
> doing
> things in C++ and want to abandon it wherever I can.  No matter how soon  
> C++0x
> gets finalized and implemented, the ecosystem of idiomatic C++0x code is  
> going to
> be small for ages, probably behind D.  (Full C++0x implementations will  
> probably
> be behind D implementations for a while, too.)  Similarly, D has plenty  
> of
> libraries if you count its ability to link to C.  It's just that you  
> have to write
> in crufty C style or write non-trivial D-ified wrappers to use them.

We still need years to see a full implementation of proposed features.  
Even the latest compilers lacks many features, sometimes half.
I NTL enjoy seeing benchmarks on new features, not a change in user code  
but dramatic performance gains as a result of the standard library and  
language changes (rvalue).