The hashtable & multithreading part is sort of an official catching up. Of course there have been threading libraries and hashtables around for C++ before. Though, the support for multithreading should not be underestimated. Check the paper “Memory model for multithreaded C++” which actually is not restricted to C++ at all but describes common problems like multiple levels of memory caches and how a contract between hardware manufactures and compiler/software developers could look like. Such a contract is essential. The contract they described is state-of-the-art and unmatched.

Regarding naming of the language and the concept feature: Please do some more research next time. Informations on “why” and “how” is all over the place. Since the early days of the STL the word “concept” has been used to categorize types. This is nothing new. The new thing about it is that the compiler is now able to PARSE and CHECK such type requirements which have been previously documented via comments.

Also, you should read at least the rules of thumb in “The design of C++0x”. It explains and rationalizes every design goal including favouring library solutions over core language extensions. Your suggestion to add a new keyword like “lambda” collides with one of those rules. BTW: The new function declaration looks different after unifying syntax with named lambdas.

I’m going to stop addessing single points of your criticisms here. It’s obvious that you didn’t check any of the published and freely available papers that rationalize all decisions.

C++ is your forefathers’ language that is EVOLVING. You just need to pay attention.

Quoting B.S.: “Language comparisons are rarely meaningful and even less often fair. A good comparison of major programming languages requires more effort than most people are willing to spend, experience in a wide range of application areas, a rigid maintenance of a detached and impartial point of view, and a sense of fairness.”

Cheers,
SG

Perhaps if he actually got a job coding for a serious, high performance coding project his ‘opinions’ would be a liitle less inane. Of course, if any prospective employer saw this article, the author would never get a job. Critical thinking skills are the most important assets in this business after all.

So-called “cross platform” languages are run on compiled software, which does incur a performance penalty, and often does not completely abstract the under lying platform completely; there are differences between programming in Java for Windows, Linux, or both, e.g.

This guy is just one of those sub-par factory produced coders who went to a Java school, or had to retake comp sci a few times before the prof passed him out of annoyance.

His “points” about programming, languages, etc. aren’t even correct half the time.

What a crock.

What a moron. Learn something about your goddamn industry, fools. Just because some languages offer interactive environments doesn’t mean they’re not compiled, or that they can’t be efficiently compiled.

Most Common Lisp implementations for the past 20-30 years have even compiled interactive code – code entered through the REPL, which people sometimes call “the interpreter” – and Lisp Machines were among the first serious high-end workstations.

Similarly, Smalltalk environments have been compiled since the 1970s, first to bytecode and then using just-in-time compilation and optimization techniques. Sun’s HotSpot JIT for Java was originally developed by a Smalltalk company.

And on Mac OS X, the Cocoa frameworks that most software is written in are all built in Objective-C, another highly dynamic language. Objective-C was created about the same time as C++, but instead of punting on issues like shared library semantics and run-time type information, Objective-C learned from Smalltalk’s example and embraced them. The result is a language that’s very easy to learn and use, and lets you write great software far faster while also allowing you plenty of opportunity to optimize.

Finally, Microsoft Research created the game-matching system used by people playing Halo 3 over Xbox Live in F# — a functional language — rather than C# or C++. Why? Because the semantics of the language made it good for hardcore algorithmic work that needed to scale to huge data sets and large numbers of CPUs. Good language interoperability throws away the need for jack-of-all-trade languages, because it lets you pick the right tools for the right problems.

1. The name of the language does not matter. People who need to use it will use it regardless. If anything, searching on generic names like Java, Ruby and Python brings up coffee, precious stornes and snakes, but you don’t hear me complaining, because I do not care. If I need to use a language I will, no matter if it is called Shit or Gold.

2. Libraries are core of the languages. This is what makes the bulk of your program, and if it does not then you are good at reinventing the wheel. Your job as application developer is to make use of all these libraries that are available to you. But, of course average programmers reinvent the wheel all the time right?

You are right on the spot that C++0x is inexpressive. Lambda functions could have been labeled lambda, and not [ ]…

Still, presentations is not content. Your write beautifully and with sarcasm but it helps little when one is off track mostly.