According to Hoyle...

C/C++ Language Updates

November 2008

by Jonathan Hoyle

macCompanion

http://www.jonhoyle.com

Early last year, I wrote about the upcoming changes in the C++ language. It has been, by far, my longest article for macCompanion, detailing most of the changes we can expect to see. (For those interested in a higher level view, visit my online PowerPoint presentation on the topic.) I will not be repeating that information here, as the great majority of it remains unchanged. However, I would like to give an update on the subject and provide additional links for those interested in pursuing this further.

C++0x == C++09?

The original specification for C++ was ratified by the ANSI/ISO committees in 1998, and is thus known as C++98. After a deliberate five years of silence (to assess the state and usage of C++), a Technical Corrigenda was produced with recommendations for bug-fixes in the specification, primarily rewording for clarification. This update to the language was called C++03 and had almost no real impact on compiler developers. The only one area that had a potential impact was formalized requirement that the memory allocation for a std::vector<> must be contiguous. (As this was the original spirit behind this container class all along, I know of no compiler vendor which hadn't implemented it this way already.)

In 2004, the ISO committee began accepting changes for real language updates, the project name being C++0x, as it was anticipated that this initiative will be finalized sometime in 200x. Last year, people began referring to C++0x as C++09, as it was becoming increasingly obvious that this specification will not be completed prior to 2009. Unfortunately, there seems to be a realistic chance that it will not be finalized even before the decade completes, thus making the working name "C++0x" possibly out of sync with a 2010 completion. (Bjarne Stroustrup has made the half-serious suggestion that the "x" be interpreted hexadecimally, so it would read "C++0A", in the event it does not finish in 2009.)

In any case, the committee members are very much dedicated to finishing this in the 2009 timeframe, so hopefully we won't have to worry about that.

What's In, What's Not

Most all of the essential changes appear to be in. These include C99 features (__func__, long long's, variadic macros, and others), Standard Library enhancements (smart pointers, regular expressions, arrays, tuples, etc.), and in-class initializers. Also making the cut are delegating and inheriting constructors, nullptr, auto & decltype, rvalues references and Concepts. Unfortunately, much less of the threading constructs will be found in C++09, aside from thread local storage. Sadly, some of the mathematical additions are also being held off from this release.

For a more detailed analysis of features being included (as of August 2008), read Bjarne Stroustrup's DevX.com interview: The State of the Language.

Forgetting to Take Out the Garbage

The biggest item not making it in C++0x is Garbage Collection. Although this is still on tap for a future rev of the C++ standard, it is very disappointing that this one is missed out. One of the key benefits of newer C++ like languages (such as Java and C#) are their built-in garbage collecting capabilities. Even older languages (like Objective-C) are being updated to include this feature, just so they can stay relevant. Without GC in C++0x, there is the risk that there will not be a C++1x... or if there is, it will no longer be relevant.

For the C++ programmer wishing to use pointers in a modern way, the new smart pointer pointer shared_ptr<> (borrowed from the Boost framework) should be an adequate substitution. Thus instead of allocating a heap-based class in the tradition way:

ObjectType *myObjectPtr = new ObjectType;

you should declare it as follows:

shared_ptr<ObjectType> myObjectPtr = new ObjectType;

By doing so, myObjectPtr is now "smart" and can dispose of itself when it is no longer needed.

What About C?

Long before the advent of C++, the C Language reigned supreme. Particularly as the 1980's progressed, C's popularity ballooned, and it quickly became the lingua franca of programming languages. Unfortunately, competing C compilers each had differing implementations, making it difficult for programmers to migrate from one C development environment to another. As the need for standardization grew, the ANSI committee took on the task of defining a single specification for the language, and ratified ANSI C in 1989.

The ISO committee ratified this standard for international use in 1990. By the mid-1990s, it was agreed that an update to the language ought to be considered, and the C9x project was under way. This was completed and ratified as C99 by decade's end. (For more information on C99, visit this online PowerPoint presentation.)

However, adoption of C99 has been relatively slow, at least relative to the strong developer embracings of C90 and C++98. Much of this may be due to developer focus shifting away from C, and more toward C++. Just as the 1980's was the decade for C, the 1990's became the decade for C++. C++ was marketed to C developers as "a better C" anyway. For this reason, some compiler vendors simply stopped shipping separate C and C++ products, and began delivering a single C++ solution (reasoning that C++ is essentially a superset of C anyway).

Indeed, many of the changes that came in C99, were simply adoptions of features that previously existed in C++, and which developers were already grown accustomed to using. These include: C++ style //, comments, intermixing variable declarations and statements, inline functions, the bool type, etc. These "new" features weren't all that new, if one was already familiar with C++. Despite this seeming convergence between C and C++, C99 also introduced some strict incompatibilities with C++, which seemed quite disconcerting to developers. These included: the C99 complex type, and its associated clog macro. These conflict with C++, as C99's complex keyword collides with C++'s complex<> templated class name. As for clog, in C99 it is the complex logarithm function, whereas in C++, it is an iostream global, similar to cout. For this reason, C99 has not enjoyed the mindshare (or adoption rate) that C90 and C++98 have had. At least, thus far.

Although most C compilers today have the majority of C99 features available to use, they are not typically well advertised. Some openly question the continued need for C in a world dominated by newer languages.

Despite this, the ISO C committee is already underway its investigation of changes for a new version of the C language. It is called the C1x project, and it is very early on in the process. The first draft of the C1x spec has been released this past August. The current plan is for C1x to be ratified in 2012, but I am inclined to think that it may take a bit longer than that to come up with something truly compelling.

What Will Come of C++09?

Many in the development community are concerned that C++09 will receive only the same lukewarm response that C99 had. The parallels between C++09 and C99 are rather obvious. Both are second generation updates coming 10 years after their primary (and extremely popular) ISO ratifications. Both had first generations that were ratified when each language was considered dominant in the industry. Similarly, both have updates that are coming in a time when newer languages are beginning to take greater mindshare. With Java, C#, Ruby and others on the upswing, will C++09 offer anything relevant? The answer to this will come only with time.

More Information

The Wikipedia entry for C++0x is an excellent resource for those interested in pursuing this further. Also, if you'd to get direct information straight from C++'s creator, you can view this video of Bjarne Stroustrup's presentation of C++0x to the University of Waterloo, or view the slides here.

Coming Up Next Month: The Top 10 Mac Fiascos! See you in 30!

Other According to Hoyle columns

http://www.maccompanion.com/macc/archives/November2008/Columns/AccordingToHoyle39.htm