On 3/23/21 10:09 AM, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > On 23/03/2021 09.16, Michael Jackson wrote: >> Having read this entire conversation I find it interesting that we as >> developers are complaining about features being deprecated and >> removed in Qt but yet where is the anger when C++ spec removes >> features? > Oh, it's there. > > However, C++ is *far* more conservative than Qt about what it removes, > and most of the removals are genuinely unuseful. (Seriously, > *trigraphs*? Are *you* using trigraphs? Or auto_ptr?) > > If you're seriously going to advance this argument, you need to point > out one or more *specific* changes that you believe are harmful. Even > then, chances are your compiler will continue to support that stuff for > another 10 years.
The change of `auto` from a scope function to a variable type is certainly harmful, especially since there was no version in between where it wasn't defined at all; it was just changed. Granted the argument was "no one uses it", but if you're porting an old application that _did_ use it you'll get all kinds of junk quickly. And yes, there was a type when I was learning about the various scoping aspects of variables that I did learn about and use it; and I'm sure there is legacy code out there that uses it. Honestly, there hasn't been much added to C++ since C++98 that was useful. std::string is one exception, as is standardizing on using Boost - but you don't need to make Boost part of the C++ standards to achieve that. > Also, C++ isn't a dictatorship the way Qt is. Anyone can object to any > change, not just on a mailing list, but in person. Anyone can, in theory > (in practice, depending on where you live, there may be a non-trivial > membership fee required) *vote* against a change. We, as the committee, > generally try to be considerate of the community when making changes, > and there is quite a lot of emphasis on not breaking existing code, even > as far back as C++98. > How many C++ devs are on those? Likely only those whose companies are paying them to be, and a few that got there via academics (I've personally known and worked with one person; outside of the folks I've seen here on the Qt lists.) In all honesty, it comes down to those who are paying to vote - which is certainly not the vast majority of C++ devs. -- Ben Meyer Software Engineer (703)901-2797 bm_witn...@yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
