4 ms·

Isn't that focus on a core c++ feature subset and coding patterns also the idea behind the "c++ core guidelines"? https://isocpp.github.io/CppCoreGuidelines/Cp

by froh 4y ago

Isn't that focus on a core c++ feature subset and coding patterns also the idea behind the "c++ core guidelines"? https://isocpp.github.io/CppCoreGuidelines/CppCoreGuidelines https://isocpp.github.io/CppCoreGuidelines/CppCoreGuidelines

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
tialaramex 4y ago
Sure, the effect of such guidelines, including the "Core Guidelines" is to further shatter the language into effectively incompatible dialects while not really solving anything. One of the book's authors actually proposed work to get C++ to a place where C++ 20 could begin actually abolishing the things everybody agrees you shouldn't do, Vittorio's "Epochs" proposal. https://vittorioromeo.info/index/blog/fixing_cpp_with_epochs.html https://vittorioromeo.info/index/blog/fixing_cpp_with_epochs... But the preference for C++ 20 was to add yet further stuff. I believe that, unwittingly, the C++ 20 process sealed the fate of the language in choosing to land features like Concepts but not attempt Epochs, I'm not sure it was actually possible, but if it wasn't possible in 2020 it's not going to be any easier in 2026 and it's only going to be more necessary.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  This is of course false. The active subset is always the set of features not supplanted by the latest Standard supported by tooling in use. Anything newer is safer and nicer than old crap, so there is no temptation to stick to old crap, except among people who have elected not to learn anything new. Those are typically approaching retirement anyway.
  - tialaramex 4y ago
    What part is false? The part where Vittorio proposed Epochs to fix this? The part where the Committee decided not to take it? Do you think that fixing this will magically get easier if you wait longer?
    - pjmlp 4y ago
      The part that the community misses the point epochs only work with FOSS source code and having the same compiler compiling everything from scratch.
      - tialaramex 4y ago
        There's nothing about Epochs which cares about software licensing. Yes, you will need the source code to C++ software to actually compile it but the relationship to licensing is at most coincidental. Much of the time when you really can't negotiate source code, it's because it's a "pig in a poke" IP sale, what you're buying was actually either worthless or the seller never really owned it anyway. The video games industry is certainly rife with this.
        pjmlp 4y ago
        Doesn't matter, a solution burned in ISO papers needs to work for everyone, not only for free source code advocates.
        tialaramex 4y ago
        "Because of ISO" has to be the lamest C++ excuse, and perhaps the fact it's seeing more use recently reflects a larger problem. Also, remember, that ISO document is known for two decades to not actually describe the language as implemented, but the fix (pointer provenance) is controversial enough that the committee keeps "forgetting" to fix it. The ISO document describes an imaginary language which would be incredibly slow and useless if it really existed, the document exists because the real C++ language is sort-of similar to this imaginary language and for some people (though it seems gradually fewer over time) that's enough. Any pretence that ISO requires it to "work for everyone" is nonsense since as documented it isn't in fact working for anyone. † One of the fun side effects is that you can't explain what ARM Morello ports do in terms of the ISO standard. CHERI reifies provenance, which would be fine if the standards document explained what provenance is, but the C and C++ documents deliberately do not do that. On paper Morello ports just waste space to make some valid programs crash, which is weird.
  - mianos 4y ago
    There is still a very large set of people using older style C++. particularly those that came from C. I can assure you they are a long long way from retirement. This is particularly true of large code-bases in established firms. Personally, I think it would be an interesting idea to soft ban a lot of pointer use and only allow shared and unique. As pointed out in an earlier comment, it is a 'python' like experience without the performance compromise. This said, the exception is when you need to use well tested existing libraries such as libmicrohttp to implement a local REST server without buying into some mega framework.

by froh 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

tialaramex 4y ago

Sure, the effect of such guidelines, including the "Core Guidelines" is to further shatter the language into effectively incompatible dialects while not really solving anything. One of the book's authors actually proposed work to get C++ to a place where C++ 20 could begin actually abolishing the things everybody agrees you shouldn't do, Vittorio's "Epochs" proposal. https://vittorioromeo.info/index/blog/fixing_cpp_with_epochs.html https://vittorioromeo.info/index/blog/fixing_cpp_with_epochs... But the preference for C++ 20 was to add yet further stuff. I believe that, unwittingly, the C++ 20 process sealed the fate of the language in choosing to land features like Concepts but not attempt Epochs, I'm not sure it was actually possible, but if it wasn't possible in 2020 it's not going to be any easier in 2026 and it's only going to be more necessary.

ncmncm 4y ago
This is of course false. The active subset is always the set of features not supplanted by the latest Standard supported by tooling in use. Anything newer is safer and nicer than old crap, so there is no temptation to stick to old crap, except among people who have elected not to learn anything new. Those are typically approaching retirement anyway.
- tialaramex 4y ago
  What part is false? The part where Vittorio proposed Epochs to fix this? The part where the Committee decided not to take it? Do you think that fixing this will magically get easier if you wait longer?
  - pjmlp 4y ago
    The part that the community misses the point epochs only work with FOSS source code and having the same compiler compiling everything from scratch.
    - tialaramex 4y ago
      There's nothing about Epochs which cares about software licensing. Yes, you will need the source code to C++ software to actually compile it but the relationship to licensing is at most coincidental. Much of the time when you really can't negotiate source code, it's because it's a "pig in a poke" IP sale, what you're buying was actually either worthless or the seller never really owned it anyway. The video games industry is certainly rife with this.
      - pjmlp 4y ago
        Doesn't matter, a solution burned in ISO papers needs to work for everyone, not only for free source code advocates.
        tialaramex 4y ago
        "Because of ISO" has to be the lamest C++ excuse, and perhaps the fact it's seeing more use recently reflects a larger problem. Also, remember, that ISO document is known for two decades to not actually describe the language as implemented, but the fix (pointer provenance) is controversial enough that the committee keeps "forgetting" to fix it. The ISO document describes an imaginary language which would be incredibly slow and useless if it really existed, the document exists because the real C++ language is sort-of similar to this imaginary language and for some people (though it seems gradually fewer over time) that's enough. Any pretence that ISO requires it to "work for everyone" is nonsense since as documented it isn't in fact working for anyone. † One of the fun side effects is that you can't explain what ARM Morello ports do in terms of the ISO standard. CHERI reifies provenance, which would be fine if the standards document explained what provenance is, but the C and C++ documents deliberately do not do that. On paper Morello ports just waste space to make some valid programs crash, which is weird.
- mianos 4y ago
  There is still a very large set of people using older style C++. particularly those that came from C. I can assure you they are a long long way from retirement. This is particularly true of large code-bases in established firms. Personally, I think it would be an interesting idea to soft ban a lot of pointer use and only allow shared and unique. As pointed out in an earlier comment, it is a 'python' like experience without the performance compromise. This said, the exception is when you need to use well tested existing libraries such as libmicrohttp to implement a local REST server without buying into some mega framework.