5 ms·

Yeah, that's my understanding as well... but I'm skeptical that this is actually possible (within reason) given the history of C++ and the sheer weight of legac

• sho_hn 11y ago
  Few useful codebases are brand new. Or if they are they don't stay new. Weight accumulates and at some point efforts always shift to successfully iterating existing things of value.
  • pcwalton 11y ago
    Which is the problem with the massive subsetting of the language that ISO Core C++ with all safety profiles turned on performs. It rules out so much existing code that porting will be very expensive. We won't know what the delta is between "migrating to ISO Core C++ with all safety profiles" and "migrating to another, memory-safe language with a good FFI" until ISO Core C++ is complete and widely deployed. My instinct tells me that this delta will not be particularly wide--that is, that porting most existing industry C++ code to totally safe ISO Core C++ will not be much easier than rewriting that code in Go or Swift or whatever. (Look at how long the Python 2 to Python 3 transition has been, and consider that ISO Core C++ is much farther away from industry C++ than Python 3 was from Python 2.) I could be wrong about this, though--we'll have to see.
  • lomnakkus 11y ago
    Sure... and that's kind of what I'm both skeptical of (and intrigued by). I'm just waiting for standards-sanctioned A(lgebraic)DT data type support -- it's bound to happen at some point! :)