> If your program is so simple that it can only have value> semantics, then it can be written in such a way that no> copying is required. ...> > On the other hand, if your program is so sensitive in> performance that it needs that extra ounce of efficiency> gained by rvalues, then it's not that simple, is it? ...> > But redundant copies exist...

> C++ is fast enough as it is. Many people disagree. In particular, if you want to write simple programs using value semantics, the cost of copying can become a problem. Rvalue references - which after all is the source of this particular debate - were introduced to transparently eliminate redundant copies. When used right (meaning under the...

> > I wonder how the heck can an article end up on Artima,> signed by Bjarne and have a serious programming error in> it???> By being a simple copy of a standards document focussed on a single topic written for relative experts. I would like to have had time to write a "perfect" article aimed for a more general audience, but there were no time...

> He mentioned BubbleSort so I immediately stopped reading.I think you are being too cynical. This is a good article explaining basic sources of inefficiencies for people who don't want a PhD in complexity theory.

What was the attendance?All the best for the future of BoostCom - it is curious that the huge C++ community hasn't been able to sustain a conference, but maybe a more cohesive subcommunity can.

Looks very elegant. How complicated is the generator? Are there any ways to control the style of C++ generated? (e.g. use of containers, int sizes, string types)

> > We have no choice but to come up with a> > simpler, more intuitive way to do multithreaded> > programming that regular programmers can use> > successfully.> > Have you ever wondered why humans can do such things as> memory management and thread synchronization while> computers can not?> > This is an important question that, strangely, no...

> > The biggest problem with writing reusable code ...> > ... but they think too much of the specific> context in which it will be used initially. ...Conversely, people often over-abstract, trying to design for problems that are largely imaginary. Good abstraction tends to come from a concrete example (or two) being generalized (without loss of...

> If you have> programmers that are doing mainly 'manual labor' there is> a problem with the tools or the approach.Exactly. One of the problems with these analogies is that people believe them and act upon them. IMO programming is a highly skilled activity with a high intellectual component. What corresponds to "manual labor" in software...

> It's interesting to see a discussion about C++ drift off> to complaints about programmer "sloppiness".Actually, it is interesting to see how every time people ask me any question about any topic, a follow-up discussion about C++'s real and imagined failures erupt. Often, I am quite convinced that many (most, in case of /.) comments are by...

>> Again, the fundamental problem is that high-quality work> is rarely demanded from developers in the first place. If> it was, they would have delivered it. I fear that you are an optimist: (1) Often it is not just that "high-quality work is rarely demanded" but that rules are in place that ensure that code is badly structured. (2) like many...

> I think it's a fine idea for universities to define such> for their degree programs. It's a kind of accreditation> that works. Just keep the law out of it.So it's government involvement you are against, rather than the idea of licensing as such?The trouble with universities is that there are so many of them and that the quality and contents...

> The answer wasn't better> pilot training, or dismissing pilots as "amateurs". Chuck> Yeager is one in a million. It was adapt the controls to> the realities of real pilots.I think you are oversimplifying the issue here. And possibly confusing it through analogy.The solution to the air traffic safety problem wasn't just better plane design. It...

> > I don't agree with the fatalistic idea that programming> tools have to be complicated and suitable only for> professionals. Neither do I. I hope (probably in vain) that nobody thought that was what I was saying.The trouble is that *many* - especially in the non-programming levels of management - dream of miracle cures, such as "just have...

Most of the really early adopters were highly skilled at delivering quality software. I'd call them professionals even if their 1985-vintage C++ code doesn't meet today's standards. It might have been better for C++ if there had been more people with lesser development skills in the mix and fewer with expert-level knowledge of C. However, this...