4 ms·

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. No

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.
      - pjmlp 2y ago
        https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/compiler_support https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/compiler_support and it doesn't have all of them.

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.
    - pjmlp 2y ago
      https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/compiler_support https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/compiler_support and it doesn't have all of them.