FeedaMail: Comments for Sutter’s Mill

	Comments for Sutter's Mill
	(Sponsor this newsletter) Comment on Trip report: Winter ISO C++ standards meeting by Thomas McLeod Herb, Thanks for an excellent meeting report that goes a long way toward demystifying the current standardization process. My comment has do to with release cadence. As someone who has been using C++ professionally for over 25 years, I remember clearly the Bad Old Days when the language evolution was excruciatingly slow. The expectations around language rate of change of many professional engineers of my generation were formed during this period. Most of them, now in management positions, have not adjusted to the idea of even a three-year cycle, never mind a two-year. In the East Coast technology job market, it remains very difficult to hire smart engineers that have sufficiently deep understanding of C++. The number that have any significant understanding of ‘modern’ C++ is vanishingly small. In job descriptions that come through my inbox, I am still not seeing any mention of C++11/14 skills. Yes, some companies are making the switch, and it appears that the change is being driven from of bottom up. Even so, from what I am hearing from my network in Boston, the switch to C++11 remains a tough sell. In cross-platform environments, the foot-dragging at MSFT VS organization is uniquely unhelpful. But the adoption hurdle also has a lot to do with resistance to new concepts in an ‘ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ mindset. This resistance seems particularly strong in organizations, such as those in defense and other ‘hard’ engineering sectors, that have traditionally used C++ for performance reasons. A year and a half out, I’ve yet to hear of a single company fully embracing C++14. So, while I personally would love to see a two-year cycle, I don’t know that it would be helpful to the overall usefulness of C++. Read More »
	(Sponsor this newsletter)
	Delievered to you by Feedamail. Unsubscribe