4 ms·
> I understand that people can have many things to say about C++, and I do as well, but `std::span` should have been there decades ago (...) Decades is kind of
by locknitpicker 4mo ago
> I understand that people can have many things to say about C++, and I do as well, but `std::span` should have been there decades ago (...)
Decades is kind of a stretch. C++11 introduced smart pointers, and finally getting C++0x out of the door was already a major victory. Given the history of C++, it would be unrealistic to introduce something like std::span before C++17.
Meantime, some organizations are still struggling to migrate to something like C++14.
- pjmlp 4mo agoIt could have been there since the beginning, given that open arrays (aka spans) already existed in other languages, and there was even a failed proposal from Denis Ritchie regarding C. The C++ span proposal came from Microsoft, https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2018/p0122r7.pdf https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2018/p01...
- locknitpicker 4mo ago> already existed in other languages This argument is moot. The issue with spans is not that they require cutting edge technology to deliver. Before commenting, perhaps you should research why even Denis Ritchie himself could not sell his idea to C. It's funny how every single idea that's rejected is blindly lauded as brilliant but silenced due to some kind of conspiracy, and only the ideas that emerged are somehow bad, unacceptable, or late. Is the point to feel outraged?
- pjmlp 4mo agoEasy, even one of the author's could not change WG14 mind towards security. Governments,related cybersecurity agencies, and companies are the ones getting outraged when looking at money spent in cyber attacks due to memory corruption issues.
- locknitpicker 4mo ago> Easy, even one of the author's could not change WG14 mind towards security. Your comment conveys a hefty dose of ignorance on the topic. I recommend you read the proposal's arguments, including how it required breaking the ABI.
- pjmlp 4mo agoAre you asserting that WG14 never had the necessary skills among all the members to help improve this proposal, or dare to bring another one during the last 40 years?
- uecker 4mo agoThis has not much to do with skill. Standardization does not work like this, and I told you this before.
- pjmlp 4mo agoYeah, I keep missing the existing practice in secure C compilers that is supposed to land on a WG14 paper. You can tell me the times you wish for, I will keep playing my trumpet until I see something in C that resembles to Modula-2 was offering in safety, nowadays brought back by Zig.
- uecker 4mo agoYour trumpet does not help and is just annoying.
- locknitpicker 4mo ago> Are you asserting that (...) No, I called out your opinionated ignorance on the topic. > WG14 never had the necessary skills among all the members to help improve this proposal (...) Frankly I don't think you even understand what you're arguing. I mean, to start off, if an idea is feasible then do you think it needs a full blown committee joining forces to magically fix all the problems? > (...) or dare to bring another one during the last 40 years? Again, you are showing a hefty dose of ignorance in the topic. Do you even understand that anyone can put together a proposal? That's how the process works. If you feel so strongly about it, where is yours? What have you been doing for the past 40 years?
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- gignico 4mo agoAfaik std::span does not need anything that was not in C++98 already, or am I missing something?
- locknitpicker 4mo ago> Afaik std::span does not need anything that was not in C++98 already, or am I missing something? You're missing the fact that following C++98 it took around 13 years to get the next version of the standard published delivered.