Hacker News Reader

Comment by maxlybbert | Hacker News Reader

It's been five years (and two standard revisions). Can we stop calling C++11 a new standard?

Standards are not adopted overnight. C++11 is still, effectively, a "new" standard.

I realize that many projects haven't made the switch, and in some cases they have good reasons to be cautious. And I realize that many programmers aren't familiar with the various changes, even after five (or more) years to catch up.

But that doesn't change the age of the standard, or the fact that C++14 was published, and the Committee is finishing up C++17. At some point it's silly to call C++11 "new." "Unfamiliar," sure, but not "new." It reminds me of Larry Wall's talk ( http://www.wall.org/~larry/pm.html ) "Do you know when New College was founded. Any guesses? New College was new in 1379."

The industry is still in the process of adopting it. My workplace only switched over six months ago. (That had been annoying, as I picked it up in roughly 2013, and it was hard to unlearn the new habits when I started working here.)

My recollection is that C99 took roughly ten years to go from "the new thing" to "normal".

Tell that to embedded system guys still having to deal with C++98, not even C++03.

Really depends on where you go. In our office, we use C++11 functionality in our AVR chips.

Hey, could you elaborate on what C++11 features you use on AVR chips? Thanks in advance :)

Sure, but from what I understand by occasionally reading some electronic stuff, many commercial compiler vendors are not even C++03.

For example TI.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com