Timeline for Using C++11 for cross-platform Game Engine Development
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 5, 2013 at 9:39 | comment | added | vdaras | @TrevorPowell that's why I said that the post isn't worth downvoting despite any arguments I have about it. I believe that this is a good post, I just wanted to clarify that the new C++ standard has some very important features and considering using it wouldn't just be about a minor thing like auto. | |
| Jul 5, 2013 at 0:44 | comment | added | Trevor Powell | @Erevis Auto was just a fairly well-known example of a new thing in the C++11 standard. I honestly wasn't selectively using it to imply that everything in the new standards was "syntactic sugar". And that whole argument has nothing to do with my point, which, as I have said both in my answer and reiterated in my reply to your original comment, was about the availability of cross-platform support for bleeding-edge language features, based upon my own past experiences. | |
| Jul 4, 2013 at 14:17 | comment | added | vdaras | @TrevorPowell, you said that the risk that he would take was for the sake of auto keyword, when there are much more important and fundamental features in the new C++ standard. Some of them, like rvalue references, would be have to be taken into important consideration when thinking about the risk. | |
| Jul 2, 2013 at 23:44 | comment | added | Trevor Powell | @Erevis I didn't say anything about syntactic sugar in my answer, or talk about the quality of any particular set of new standards at all. My answer is only talking about the lack of guaranteed cross-platform support for brand new language features, and how that can impact on a business's income, as that was what the original question was asking for. I don't think I was saying anything particularly controversial? | |
| Jul 2, 2013 at 13:38 | comment | added | vdaras | I'm not going to downvote this but the new C++ standard is so much more than syntactic sugar such as the auto keyword. | |
| Nov 28, 2012 at 5:33 | vote | accept | Samaursa | ||
| Nov 28, 2012 at 5:21 | comment | added | Trevor Powell | I'm always really anxious about giving these "be cautious" answers, particularly when they clearly aren't what the original poster wants to hear. But I've seen big compiler bugs on consoles too many times in my career for me to feel comfortable jumping onto new language standards in a cross-platform project. Needing to rewrite your code to get around issues in a compiler is never any fun, particularly when you're under a deadline. | |
| Nov 28, 2012 at 4:32 | comment | added | NoobsArePeople2 | +1 for this (and the rest of the post, but this): "rely[ing] on a bunch of unknown compiler writers' correct adherence to bleeding edge language standards is dangerous". Experimenting with the latest toys is always fun, relying on them not so much. | |
| Nov 28, 2012 at 0:42 | history | answered | Trevor Powell | CC BY-SA 3.0 |