4 ms·

I don't know of anyone happy with the C++ standard committee. Some parts of the new std features were copied from Python, which is good, a semantic and naming

I don't know of anyone happy with the C++ standard committee. Some parts of the new std features were copied from Python, which is good, a semantic and naming a lot of people already know. Yet some weirdo decided to half copy the naming scheme of APL and we end up with functions named "iota". Seriously. What. The. Don't get me started on features added in C++17 and deprecated 2 versions later. Don't ask also why they decided to rename universal references by forwarding references while the former makes sense and the latter none, just because they were pissed to not have named it first. All I want now, for the future of C++, is a Circle-like approach. I want to be able to selectively disable and replace legacy behavior and syntax, per file, so that at last we can have the language evolve.

pjmlp 2y ago
> Don't get me started on features added in C++17 and deprecated 2 versions later They are currently suffering from not having proper field experience on many features before setting them into the standard.
- vlovich123 2y ago
  And it’s not like they’re unfamiliar with how rust is doing things and yet they still choose to cling to clearly broken processes. ISO is a mess.
  - pjmlp 2y ago
    The problem is that isn't that easy to get out of ISO, and only a vocal minority cares about this.
    - Galanwe 2y ago
      I think it has to be more of a compiler driven movement. GCC and clang have to be the ones that accept to implement the standard of an alternative committee. Now I get this alternative committee doesn't exist yet, and there is no agreement of what the future could be (cpp2, cpp front, circle, carbon..) and it's a huge investment. But developers will follow compiler. I sure would use circle if it was not a proprietary compiler.
      - pjmlp 2y ago
        Except the C++ compiler world is much bigger than two compilers. clang is even lagging behind in ISO vs GCC, because most compiler vendors that fork it, mostly care about the backend, while two former major contributors are now are focused on their own LLVM based languages. Which is why, those that care about portable code can at best use C++14 or C++17, while many libraries still target C++11. So how do expect those two compilers to set the direction C++ should be?
        garaetjjte 2y ago
        >is much bigger than two compilers Yes, it's three: clang, gcc and msvc.
        pjmlp 2y ago
        Only when using tunnel vision for desktop and FOSS UNIX clones.
        vlovich123 2y ago
        What are the other major compilers? Intel has switched to LLVM for example (and presumably clang as a frontend).
        pjmlp 2y ago
        Plenty to chose from in embedded, high integrity computing, RTOS, Aix, IBM i, IBM z, Unisys,.... Just because HN folks don't used them, doesn't make them irrelevant in the set of companies and indivuals that seat at WG 21 table. That is why I used the expression "tunnel vision for desktop and FOSS UNIX clones.".
        Galanwe 2y ago
        Huh, I mean yeah gcc, clang and msvc, for desktop, servers and GP embedded hardware. That's like 99.99% of the compiling that most likely happen in the wild. Far from tunnel vision.
  - shrimp_emoji 2y ago
    Welcome to the UN. I mean, err, international bureaucracy.

pjmlp 2y ago

> Don't get me started on features added in C++17 and deprecated 2 versions later They are currently suffering from not having proper field experience on many features before setting them into the standard.

vlovich123 2y ago
And it’s not like they’re unfamiliar with how rust is doing things and yet they still choose to cling to clearly broken processes. ISO is a mess.
- pjmlp 2y ago
  The problem is that isn't that easy to get out of ISO, and only a vocal minority cares about this.
  - Galanwe 2y ago
    I think it has to be more of a compiler driven movement. GCC and clang have to be the ones that accept to implement the standard of an alternative committee. Now I get this alternative committee doesn't exist yet, and there is no agreement of what the future could be (cpp2, cpp front, circle, carbon..) and it's a huge investment. But developers will follow compiler. I sure would use circle if it was not a proprietary compiler.
    - pjmlp 2y ago
      Except the C++ compiler world is much bigger than two compilers. clang is even lagging behind in ISO vs GCC, because most compiler vendors that fork it, mostly care about the backend, while two former major contributors are now are focused on their own LLVM based languages. Which is why, those that care about portable code can at best use C++14 or C++17, while many libraries still target C++11. So how do expect those two compilers to set the direction C++ should be?
      - garaetjjte 2y ago
        >is much bigger than two compilers Yes, it's three: clang, gcc and msvc.
        pjmlp 2y ago
        Only when using tunnel vision for desktop and FOSS UNIX clones.
        vlovich123 2y ago
        What are the other major compilers? Intel has switched to LLVM for example (and presumably clang as a frontend).
        pjmlp 2y ago
        Plenty to chose from in embedded, high integrity computing, RTOS, Aix, IBM i, IBM z, Unisys,.... Just because HN folks don't used them, doesn't make them irrelevant in the set of companies and indivuals that seat at WG 21 table. That is why I used the expression "tunnel vision for desktop and FOSS UNIX clones.".
        Galanwe 2y ago
        Huh, I mean yeah gcc, clang and msvc, for desktop, servers and GP embedded hardware. That's like 99.99% of the compiling that most likely happen in the wild. Far from tunnel vision.
- shrimp_emoji 2y ago
  Welcome to the UN. I mean, err, international bureaucracy.