3 ms·
>That way, everything in the standard library is something that is fully-thought-out and feature-complete Are C++ features really that much better thought out?
by dralley 2y ago
>That way, everything in the standard library is something that is fully-thought-out and feature-complete
Are C++ features really that much better thought out? Modules were "standardized" half a decade ago, but the list of problems with actually using them in practice is still pretty damn long to the point where adoption is basically non-existent.
I'm not going to pretend to be nearly as knowledgeable about C++ as Rust, but it seems like most new C++ features I hear about are a bit janky or don't actually fit that well with the rest of the language. Something that tends to happen when designing things in an ivory tower without testing them in practice.
- pclmulqdq 2y agoThey absolutely are. The reason many features are stupid and janky is because the language and its ecosystem has had almost 40 more years to collect cruft. The fundamental problem with modules is that build systems for C++ have different abstractions and boundaries. C++ modules are like Rust async - something that just doesn't fit well with the language/system and got hammered in anyway. The reason it seems like they come from nowhere is probably because you don't know where they come from. Most things go through boost, folly, absl, clang, or GCC (or are vendor-specific features) before going to std. That being said, it's not just C++ that has this flow for adding features to the language. Almost every other major language that is not Rust has an authoritative specification.