Looking forward to C++11, or not?

[Catfish]

Yes it's that thread again.

I'd like to know what are the features you're most eager to use and why.
Critics also welcome! To get both sides of the story.

I read a little about the so called "concepts". I'm personally glad they got postponed until 20XX. I guess I don't know what I'm missing.

Other than that, and auto which will save typing (while obscuring the code), looks like a fine new standard. Not.

[hamsterman]

Well, I bet it will create a whole new level of mess in the language. Though I guess that is consistent with previous design principles of C++, so that makes it OK :).

[helios]

Oh, man, I'm in love with type inference. Although the way to was added to C++ is rather ad hoc. When you don't include implicit function polymorphism with it, it just becomes a small time saver. Admittedly, I don't know how they would have included IFP into the existing type system.
But combine type inference with IFP, and you have a language that combines the versatility of dynamic typing with the safety of static typing. Just take a look at OCaml, StandardML, or Haskell.

[3hM2Nwbp]

The more standardized, the better.

@catfish - Are you forgetting that auto is also (part of) a fix to certain function template scope issues?

[Catfish]

@ Luc Lieber: Of course I knew auto comes from C and only recently its purpose was perverted. But then you'd argue that it didn't have any real purpose to begin with. Which would contradict your previous post. Checkmate! (Don't take this post too seriously.)

Back on topic, I'm confused as to why this thread has so few replies... on a C++ forum. I was expecting to see Marshall Clines and Yossi Kreinins arguing with great ardor over the good and the bad, yet insignificant, new features or lack thereof.

[LB]

I'm excited about inbuilt threading facilities. In some sarcastic chat:

Somone in some sarcastic chat wrote:

<Looki> std::thread t (MyThreadFunc); //makes a new thread
<Looki> looks complicated

[rapidcoder]

Wow, they added threads. Really cool. Now most C++ programs will not only segfault or memleak but also deadlock. :D

http://home.earthlink.net/~rzeh/WhyThreadsSuck.html
http://adam.heroku.com/past/2009/8/13/threads_suck/

[hamsterman]

I don't know what you're talking about. We've been deadlocking for a long time already. Now our deadlocks will be more standard though. :)

[1vRz3TCk]

I'm looking forward to the fourth edition of "The C++ Programming Language", I wonder when that will happen.

[shacktar]

I'm excited mostly about the standard threading and regular expression facilities. Also, it's about time C++ had a null pointer constant.

[Albatross]

I cannot wait for the standard regular expression library... that's going to be useful on many levels (because I'll get to myself two command line parameters when compiling programs using regular expressions).

Yes, I'm looking forward to C\+\+1\d. What, too cynical?

-Albatross

[DSLq5Di1]

I'm excited about anything new and shiny.. but mostly looking forward to uniform initialization, move semantics, ranged for loops, and strongly typed enums.

[Bazzy]

http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/

News 2011-09-11: The new C++ standard - C++11 - is published!

We finally have ISO/IEC 14882:2011!!!

[hanst99]

Regular expressions, lambdas, auto and initializer lists. Maybe threads too, though I gotta admit that my knowledge on threads is right now rather... limited (never got in a situation where it made sense to use threads before).

[1vRz3TCk]

Does anyone know if there are any changes from the Working Draft, Standard for Programming
Language C++ (n3424)^[1] and the final published version?
___________________
[1] http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2011/n3242.pdf

[shacktar]

Well, the final version is available for a fee (currently 352 CHF (approx. $400 US) (approx. 252 GBP))
http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=50372

Wikipedia says the changes, if any, are minor. You're probably safe using the working draft. I have the working draft saved on my comp and I'm going to use it until the final version is free.

[Duthomhas]

... until the final version is free.

Which will never happen. The committee makes its money by selling the standards it publishes. (Which is reasonable.)

[shacktar]

So, the C++ 2003 standard is illegally posted on the net?

Well, I found C++ 2003 for $30 US here:
http://webstore.ansi.org/RecordDetail.aspx?sku=INCITS/ISO/IEC%2014882-2003

Likely the price of C++11 will go down at least.

[rapidcoder]

But what do you need the standard document for? I guess it is mostly for compiler / tool creators, not for programmers. If programmers needed to read language specs to write good code, it would be a bad sign (meaning that language is overcomplicated).

[1vRz3TCk]

But what do you need the standard document for?

Winning arguments! ;0)