3 ms·
I feel like this is a strawman. 9/10 times when there is resistance to a particular feature it's because implementing it breaks the ABI. > requiring people t
by duped 5y ago
I feel like this is a strawman.
9/10 times when there is resistance to a particular feature it's because implementing it breaks the ABI.
> requiring people to physically travel to remote locations, miss time off work, and spend a lot of money.
It's a different kind of barrier to entry, but I would be surprised if the attendees of the standards meetings aren't being compensated for it.
- UncleMeat 5y agoYup this is the core problem. What should C++ prioritize? 1. Backwards compatibility with already existing binaries? 2. Speed speed speed? 3. Ergonomics?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- overgard 5y agoWait I thought C++ never even specified an ABI? Isn't name mangling and calling conventions left to the implementation?
- initplus 5y agoThere is a large culture among C++ users of distributing pre-compiled binaries of dependencies. See every Linux distribution, or the MSVC ecosystem where sharing precompiled .dll's is the norm. In this context ABI breaking changes are not viable due to the proliferation of pre-existing compiled binaries. What the standard says is only half the story...
- pjmlp 5y ago> There is a large culture among C++ users of distributing pre-compiled binaries of dependencies. See every Linux distribution, or the MSVC ecosystem where sharing precompiled .dll's is the norm. That is why I can code on the go in C++ on my travel netbook, while I mostly use Rust when plugged, or have to do a full build before leaving.
- jcelerier 5y agoSure, but in the end everyone codes against implementations, not the standard - the standard does not even know/care about dynamic libraries