>If the major version were to change, there wouldn't be any need for backward compatibility with the existing code,
replyI have no idea where you get this idea from. I expect gcc v28 to be able to compile C++ from 2008, and I'm not alone in that.
Are you suggesting we move to C++++?
replyIt's already there. It's called C#
replyWell, C# also has its quirks already. Like the crippled finalizers which are never to be used. If the IDisposable interface had been correctly designed, finalizers could become be the "public void Dispose(void)". Or the manual passing of Task in case of async methods, which is... kinda smelly.
replyIt's possible you didn't realise, but C# is sometimes said to be named that way because # is the symbol you get if you draw ++ small and then on the line below ++ again. Hence C++++
replyAll languages have some spikier edges, there are no languages I know where I think "Well, even if we could start over I have no idea how to improve this". What's notable about C++ is just how rich that "could do better" seam is, so very many of their defaults are wrong, so many of their keywords are the wrong word, so many of their standard library features are allowed, sometimes even mandated to be crap.
I don’t know if that’s true or not, but while the thought never crossed my mind before your comment, it’s now canon in my mind. Yes, C# is spelled C++++ with a ligature.
replyI think you meant to get that to the original poster, who seems to imply C# is the flawless, bestest incarnation of C\+\+(\+\+)+.
replyPersonally I like C+. Picking the nice parts of C++, but skipping all the nonsense. I just wish C++ hadn't deliberately screwed up designated initializers with mandatory ordering. The C version of it that allows out-of-order assignments is clearly superior.
replyDidn't you read the article? That form is deprecated. The recommended one is C,++,++
replyYou clearly didn't read it either. Going forward, it will be C++...
reply