
Bjarne Stroustrup on Concepts and the Future of C++ - naish
http://www.devx.com/cplus/Article/42448/1954?pf=true
======
scott_s
I'm halfway through, and there's a strange conflict between the interviewer
and Stroustrup. The interviewer won't let go the idea that Concepts completely
failed and are now dead. Stroustrup is doing a good job of explaining why he
doesn't think they failed (and I agree) and that they're not dead.

This is worth reading because what Stroustrup says has value, but the
questions themselves are loaded.

~~~
lallysingh
Also, when the conversation gets pretty contentious, the pull quote they
choose is "Bjarne Stroustrup: You may be right...". I'm not a fan of this
interviewer.

~~~
scott_s
In the comments for the editorial linked at the top, some of the committee
members take him to task: <http://www.devx.com/cplus/Article/42365/0/page/2>

------
0wned
I don't know Mr. Stroustrup, but I have exchanged emails with him. He's always
very pleasant and professional in the emails (even when dealing with a nobody
such as me). Just like in this interview... I believe he's a genuinely nice
guy.

Personally, I get a lot of use out of C++ (with or without concepts to further
firm-up the language). It will be a major language for many decades to come.
It's not perfect (no language is) and it evolves slowly. Regardless of the ISO
standard happenings, knowing C++ will help you become a better, more mature
programmer.

------
wglb
I agree about the sensationalist tone noted in other comments here.

However, and I have been away from c++ for a while, it is not clear that there
is any widespread practice behind concepts. It seems to almost always be a
mistake to design features at the standardization level. Does anyone remember
the 'alias' C keyword disaster?

My thinking now, obviously corrupted by prolonged exposure to python and now
lisp, is that C++ is more complex than it needs to be or than is useful. When
in "Modern C++ Design" Andrei Alexandrescu presents C++ topics that amaze
Scott Meyers, maybe we need to take a step back. Yes, I know that is Bjarne's
major gig.

~~~
acg
I completely agree, the interviewer is hardly impartial: he pushes Bjarne to
admit what he'd like. Although I can't help thinking we have all been here
before. C++ despite using it for a over a decade still feels like a research
project, the thing is Bjarne never admits failure in anything C++. I can't
help thinking the build-a-better-C, by providing generic programming and OO
hasn't met it's goal. C for all its faults is beautifully simple. Where C++
after almost 20 years still needs "fixes" to make it better. To me better is
not adding more compiler syntax (that most earlier generic/oo languages have
done without). Programmers, even good ones, need to get increasingly bogged
down on how to instruct their compiler to do the correct thing. Most
programmers I know want to get the solution finished, and aren't interesting
on how to be clever with the compiler. This trying to shoehorn objects onto C
seems mad considering all that's needed to interoperate with C is the ability
to support C linkage. Why not just design a better C?

~~~
dkarl
_Bjarne never admits failure in anything C++._

I don't know if he has ever used the word "failure," but he has admitted
missteps and shortcomings in C++. "I think I know more about the problems with
C++ than just about anyone." I think he is less negative about C++ than people
expect because his definition of the problem to be solved is extremely broad.
It includes all existing C and C++ code, experienced programmers, new
learners, diverse implementations, many hardware and OS platforms, stakeholder
politics, and standardization logistics. He would probably make the list two
or three times as long. Even so, he hasn't always got his way when it comes to
C++, so it hardly needs to be said that he thinks there were mistakes made
along the way.

