cmeerw

joined 1 year ago
36
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by cmeerw@programming.dev to c/cpp@programming.dev
[–] cmeerw@programming.dev 15 points 3 months ago

at least you could keep their reviews so users could at least know if the app can be trusted.

You mean, don't trust a flatpak uploaded by a random person, but if there are enough fake reviews, it can be trusted?

[–] cmeerw@programming.dev 2 points 3 months ago

No mention of Reflection which was passed to the Core Working Group for wording review, or senders/receivers (on the library side) which was actually voted into the working paper.

[–] cmeerw@programming.dev 1 points 3 months ago

Huh? There is no such alternation between new features and feature freeze releases. In fact, C++26 will very likely get reflection as a major new feature. In comparison, the biggest core language feature in C++23 was probably "deducting this (explicit object member functions)".

The only thing that keeps Contracts out of C++26 is that they might not be finished in time (they'll need to be handed over from Evolution to Core by the February 2025 meeting, and then make it through Core review during the summer 2025 meeting).

[–] cmeerw@programming.dev 1 points 3 months ago

... except when ISO delays publication of the standard.

[–] cmeerw@programming.dev 1 points 4 months ago

Can anyone explain why there is such a huge difference in some of the benchmarks: Poll, Forking, CPU Cache, Semaphores, Socket Activity, Context Switching (all Stress-NG). Can we really trust these tests?

[–] cmeerw@programming.dev 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Depends on what semantic you want. Sure, if you use a unique_ptr member, you will get a deleted copy constructor/operator - I wouldn't consider that blowing up in my face.

[–] cmeerw@programming.dev 9 points 6 months ago (4 children)

And even the presented fix hurts my eyes. Should have used a unique_ptr or optional.

[–] cmeerw@programming.dev 1 points 6 months ago

Yes, it's not Open Source, but I am not sure that's really relevant here. I see it more as a prototype implementation for something that could be standardised for C++.

[–] cmeerw@programming.dev 4 points 6 months ago

The linked tweet links to the recording, but it has apparently also been uploaded to YouTube: https://youtu.be/5Q1awoAwBgQ

 

Anyone else noticing all those broken icons/images on this instance?

e.g. https://programming.dev/pictrs/image/1e947440-0f0d-4768-ba4b-1480551e7cc9.png?format=webp&thumbnail=96 seems to result in something like "Request error: error sending request for url (http://pictrs:8080/image/process.webp?src=1e947440-0f0d-4768-ba4b-1480551e7cc9.png&thumbnail=96): error trying to connect: dns error: failed to lookup address information: Name or service not known"

 

Please take 10 minutes or so to participate! A summary of the results, including aggregated highlights of common answers in the write-in responses, will be posted publicly here on isocpp.org and shared with the C++ standardization committee participants to help inform C++ evolution.

The survey closes in one week.

[–] cmeerw@programming.dev 8 points 9 months ago

Also the location of known Wifi networks.

[–] cmeerw@programming.dev 10 points 10 months ago

Embracing the GC

I never actually liked the GC in D as it didn't seem to fit in with the general direction of the language, and Walter Bright in D at 20: Hits and Misses says:

Miss: Emphasis on GC

[–] cmeerw@programming.dev 1 points 10 months ago

There is also lowendspirit, but in both cases you have to be very careful what you buy - not everything that is advertised there will work as advertised or will work long-term

view more: next ›