• rmam@programming.devOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s quite interesting that, after adding all percentages, the total goes up to 144%. Clearly some fancy math is in play.

    • ananas@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I regularly use C++17, C++20 and C++23 with different projects. I am counted in three categories.

    • Redkey@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you’re required to use different environments to produce software for multiple platforms, those different environments may come with different compilers that support different C++ standards. And then you’re regularly using more than one C++ standard.

      • Dani (:cxx: modules addict)@hachyderm.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        @Redkey @rmam I assume you’re aware of the fact that there exists *only one* C++ standard at a time (C++20 today, C++23 later this year).

        You probably mean
        * using reduced feature sets
        * compiling with non-conforming compilers

        But this might sound less nice than “using an obsolete standard xyz”. I’m totally aware why large swaths of the industry are stuck in the past for well-motivated reasons.

        • rmam@programming.devOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          there exists only one C++ standard at a time

          What? No. That’s not how it works, at all. When a new version of the international standard is published, that does not mean previous versions cease to exist. It just means there’s a new version.

            • rmam@programming.devOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              @rmam Older versions of the C++ standard are withdrawn.

              This just goes to show the degree of confusion you’re dealing with. You’re confusing ISO’s systematic review process with the real world. ISO’s withdrawal process is used as a janitorial process regarding documents than require updates and/or maintenance. Just because no one will update C+11 that does not mean no one writes code in C++11 or compiler writers pulled it’s support. ISO’s review process matters nothing.