# Opinions on dropping support for C++03

**URL:** https://discourse.itk.org/t/opinions-on-dropping-support-for-c-03/481
**Category:** Community
**Created:** [December 4, 2017, 9:38pm UTC](https://discourse.itk.org/t/opinions-on-dropping-support-for-c-03/481 "2017-12-04T21:38:17Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![blowekamp](https://discourse.itk.org/user_avatar/discourse.itk.org/blowekamp/32/79_2.png) [@blowekamp](https://discourse.itk.org/u/blowekamp)
#### Post date: [December 4, 2017, 9:54pm UTC](https://discourse.itk.org/t/opinions-on-dropping-support-for-c-03/481/2 "2017-12-04T21:54:26Z")

</div>

I think that a change to the fundamental language requirement of a library justifies a major revision increment. So I am of the general opinion that ITK 5 should require C+11.

Additionally to justify the change I’d like to see some good use of it in ITK. Some things that first come to mind:

- Support move semantics for the core ITK objects
- Have implementations that make use of C++11 threads
- Have a FunctorFilter which supports lambda expressions
- Rvalue support
- A updated style guideline which requires less typedefs ( auto keyword )

Developing a list that the community can work on may be a good idea?

Adding: Suport for remote module testing against multiple versions of ITK.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.itk.org/t/opinions-on-dropping-support-for-c-03/481)._