3 ms·

You are correct. I may have read more into GP’s post than they intended. I assumed given the issues present in the tread and the original tweets, I assumed they

You are correct. I may have read more into GP’s post than they intended. I assumed given the issues present in the tread and the original tweets, I assumed they were referring to the Committee submission document from 2020 [1] and the ‘uproar’ from non-FAANG developers. 1 - http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2020/p2137r0.html http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2020/p213...

pjmlp 5y ago
Well, given that Google has reduced their contributions to ISO C++ and clang/LLVM, it appears the ISO is working as intended, where everyone has one vote, despite wanting more.
- tialaramex 5y ago
  Ultimately the votes at ISO are on behalf of sovereign entities, and so you should be glad that it rarely comes to that, since I don't think you necessarily agree that Ireland and Kenya each ought to have the same weight as the United States of America when it comes to C++. I would suggest the "reduced contributions" means that - unsurprisingly - Google thinks Chandler, Titus and co. were right and so since the C++ Committee doesn't endorse the performance goals that means C++ will gradually become less suitable for them and they should expect to begin migrating off it in the foreseeable future. In Prague in 2020 the committee also signalled that it recognised the concerns about Undefined Behaviour from much of the C++ programmer community, but as with Epochs, the enthusiasm for actually doing anything is extremely limited, the committee promises that it doesn't want to actively make things worse if possible, which is as Antonin Scalia would say "Weak sauce". So, I think the direction of C++ for the next decade is, maintain old C++ code, ensure opportunities for people writing books and selling consultancy, don't worry too much about making it any faster, nor any safer. Plenty of people will be happy with that. Lots more will not. One of the things to watch from Google will be whether it deprioritizes LLVM or mostly Clang. Lots of other interesting projects care about LLVM and traditionally benefited from work done to make Clang better, but if Clang ceases to be the priority the LLVM work still needs to be done.

pjmlp 5y ago

Well, given that Google has reduced their contributions to ISO C++ and clang/LLVM, it appears the ISO is working as intended, where everyone has one vote, despite wanting more.

tialaramex 5y ago
Ultimately the votes at ISO are on behalf of sovereign entities, and so you should be glad that it rarely comes to that, since I don't think you necessarily agree that Ireland and Kenya each ought to have the same weight as the United States of America when it comes to C++. I would suggest the "reduced contributions" means that - unsurprisingly - Google thinks Chandler, Titus and co. were right and so since the C++ Committee doesn't endorse the performance goals that means C++ will gradually become less suitable for them and they should expect to begin migrating off it in the foreseeable future. In Prague in 2020 the committee also signalled that it recognised the concerns about Undefined Behaviour from much of the C++ programmer community, but as with Epochs, the enthusiasm for actually doing anything is extremely limited, the committee promises that it doesn't want to actively make things worse if possible, which is as Antonin Scalia would say "Weak sauce". So, I think the direction of C++ for the next decade is, maintain old C++ code, ensure opportunities for people writing books and selling consultancy, don't worry too much about making it any faster, nor any safer. Plenty of people will be happy with that. Lots more will not. One of the things to watch from Google will be whether it deprioritizes LLVM or mostly Clang. Lots of other interesting projects care about LLVM and traditionally benefited from work done to make Clang better, but if Clang ceases to be the priority the LLVM work still needs to be done.