# Shall we start using C++17 at the master branch?

**URL:** https://discourse.itk.org/t/shall-we-start-using-c-17-at-the-master-branch/5828
**Category:** Engineering
**Created:** [March 23, 2023, 3:33pm UTC](https://discourse.itk.org/t/shall-we-start-using-c-17-at-the-master-branch/5828 "2023-03-23T15:33:26Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Niels\_Dekker](https://discourse.itk.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@Niels\_Dekker](https://discourse.itk.org/u/Niels_Dekker)
#### Post date: [March 27, 2023, 3:40pm UTC](https://discourse.itk.org/t/shall-we-start-using-c-17-at-the-master-branch/5828/3 "2023-03-27T15:40:24Z")

</div>

Thanks Matt. I believe that the required compiler versions that I proposed with PR #3969 basically support all C++17 _language_ features. For some of the C++17 `std` _library_ features, even more recent compiler versions may be needed. For example, `std::filesystem` is added with GCC 8, whereas the PR only requires GCC 7. And clang still does not support the parallel C++17 algorithms from `<algorithm>`. For details, you may have a look at [Compiler support for C++17 - cppreference.com](https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/compiler_support/17) of course!

Note also that the PR still supports VS2017 (at least from version 15.7), even though I wouldn’t mind dropping that one either 😺

> [@Drop support for Visual Studio 2017?](https://discourse.itk.org/t/drop-support-for-visual-studio-2017/4944):
>
> Microsoft is dropping “vs2017-win2016” from their hosted pipelines for Azure Pipelines. An attempt to use it to test [elastix](https://github.com/SuperElastix/elastix) produced the following error message: ##[error]This is a scheduled windows-2016 brownout. The windows-2016 environment is deprecated and will be removed on April 1st, 2022. For more details, see [Windows-2016 environment removal postponed until April 1st, 2022 · Issue #5238 · actions/virtual-environments · GitHub](https://github.com/actions/virtual-environments/issues/5238) ,##[error]The remote provider was unable to process the re…

So I just want to say that PR #3969 is quite a modest proposal 😇

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.itk.org/t/shall-we-start-using-c-17-at-the-master-branch/5828)._