You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In page 20 of ISO's 2022 Annual C++ Developer Survey "Lite", only 12.76% responded that they're not allowed to use C++17 in their current work/school project. Compare this to 2.4% for C++11.
Here is a snapshot of that table that I place here under the Fair Use Doctrine for the purposes of discussion.
In light of that survey, I'd like to migrate CppWAMP to C++17 for the v1.0.0 release that will feature router functionality. If there are any objections to C++17, please let me know and explain why.
I would avoid the features of C++17 that have poor support from compilers, in particular from_chars and to_chars where I would provide a macro to enable/disable their use. cppreference has this nice table that summarizes C++17 feature support by compiler.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
In page 20 of ISO's 2022 Annual C++ Developer Survey "Lite", only 12.76% responded that they're not allowed to use C++17 in their current work/school project. Compare this to 2.4% for C++11.
Here is a snapshot of that table that I place here under the Fair Use Doctrine for the purposes of discussion.
In light of that survey, I'd like to migrate CppWAMP to C++17 for the v1.0.0 release that will feature router functionality. If there are any objections to C++17, please let me know and explain why.
I would avoid the features of C++17 that have poor support from compilers, in particular
from_chars
andto_chars
where I would provide a macro to enable/disable their use. cppreference has this nice table that summarizes C++17 feature support by compiler.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: