[Info-vax] Clang

[Simon Clubley]

On 2022-11-16, Jan-Erik Söderholm <jan-erik.soderholm at telia.com> wrote:
> Den 2022-11-16 kl. 03:51, skrev Arne Vajhøj:
>> On 11/15/2022 9:42 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>> On 11/15/2022 4:14 PM, Stephen Hoffman wrote:
>>>> On 2022-11-15 14:09:16 +0000, Simon Clubley said:
>>>>> Given how critical LLVM has become, I would prefer a much more 
>>>>> conservative
>>>>> upgrade schedule on the required language standards for use with LLVM 
>>>>> itself.
>>>>
>>>> How long would you suggest waiting before starting to adopt C++17 features?
>>>>
>>>> ~Five years, and ~most of two standards, maybe?
>>>
>>> I'm curious.  While I don't know diddly about C++, I'm wondering about 
>>> all the rather often upgrades to the standard.  Was it that bad to begin 
>>> with?  Does it really need such constant upgrades?
>> 
>> It is common for actively maintained languages to get
>> new versions with new features every 12/24/36 months.
>> 
>> To stay competitive C++ needs to evolve with the rest.
>> 
>> Arne
>> 
>> 
>
> Why does C++ (or C) need to "stay competitive"?

There are some things that are a good idea to add, but don't forget that
one possible driver is that it's in the personal interests of the people
on the language committee to continue to "appear relevant". That means
there may be motivation to add features that might not be really required to
continue to show their current and future employers how "important" they are.

The employers also have a vested interest in continuing to see updated
versions of the language standards so they can sell updated compilers.

> If there are better tools to do the same job, why not use them instead?

Sacrilege!!! You can't have that kind of reasonable talk around here. :-)

> Is this some kind of competition between languages?

Yes. Unfortunately. (And we all pay the price as a result. :-( )

Simon.

-- 
Simon Clubley, clubley at remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.