Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

C++26 is done: ISO C++ standards meeting Trip Report

herbsutter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 437 posts

Re: C++26 is done: ISO C++ standards meeting Trip Report

#21

Post by raincole »

suby wrote: post #11

I am somewhat dismayed that contracts were accepted. It feels like piling on ever more complexity to a language which has already surpassed its complexity budget, and given that the feature comes with its own set of footguns I'm not sure that it is justified. Here's a quote from Bjarne, > So go back about one year, and we could vote about it before it got into the standard, and some of us voted no. Now we have a much…

I mean... it's C++. The complexity budget is like the US government's debt ceiling.

Re: C++26 is done: ISO C++ standards meeting Trip Report

#22

Post by StilesCrisis »

Xraider72 wrote: post #12
forrestthewoods wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Modules are a failed idea. Really really hard for me to see them becoming mainstream at this point.

No idea if modules themselves are failed or no, but if c++ wants to keep fighting for developer mindshare, it must make something resembling modules work and figure out package management. yes you have CPM, vcpkg and conan, but those are not really standard and there is friction involved in getting it work.

Much like contracts--yes, C++ needs something modules-like, but the actual design as standardized is not usable.

Once big companies like Google started pulling out of the committee, they lost their connection to reality and now they're standardizing things that either can't be implemented or no one wants as specced.

Re: C++26 is done: ISO C++ standards meeting Trip Report

#24

Post by dislikedopinion »

bluGill wrote: post #20
addaon wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can’t speak to the C++ contract design — it’s possible bad choices were made. But contracts in general are absolutely exactly what C++ needs for the next step of its evolution. Programming languages used for correct-by-design software (Ada, C++, Rust) need to enable deep integration with proof assistants to allow showing arbitrary properties statically instead of via testing, and contracts are /the/ key part of tha…

The people who did contracts are aware of ada/spark and some have experience using it. Only time will tell if it works in c++ but they at least did all they could to give it a chance. Note that this is not the end of contrats. This is a minimun viable start that they intend to add to but the missing parts are more complex.

Might be the case that Ada folks successfully got a bad version of contracts not amenable for compile-time checking into C++, to undermine the competition. Time might tell.

Re: C++26 is done: ISO C++ standards meeting Trip Report

#25

Post by mgaunard »

luka598 wrote: post #13
zarzavat wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best thing the C++ WG could do is to spend an entire release cycle working on modules and packaging. It's nice to have new features, but what is really killing C++ is Cargo. I don't think a new generation of developers are going to be inspired to learn a language where you can't simply `cargo add` whatever you need and instead have to go through hell to use a dependency.

Agreed, arcane cmake configs and or bash build scripts are genuinely off-putting. Also cpp "equivalents" of cargo which afaik are conan and vcpkg are not default and required much more configuring in comparison with cargo. Atleast this was my experience few years ago.

It's fundamentally different; Rust entirely rejects the notion of a stable ABI, and simply builds everything from source.

C and C++ are usually stuck in that antiquated thinking that you should build a module, package it into some libraries, install/export the library binaries and associated assets, then import those in other projects. That makes everything slow, inefficient, and widely dangerous.

There are of course good ways of building C++, but those are the exception rather than the standard.

Re: C++26 is done: ISO C++ standards meeting Trip Report

#26

Post by derriz »

addaon wrote: post #17
suby wrote: post #11

I am somewhat dismayed that contracts were accepted. It feels like piling on ever more complexity to a language which has already surpassed its complexity budget, and given that the feature comes with its own set of footguns I'm not sure that it is justified. Here's a quote from Bjarne, > So go back about one year, and we could vote about it before it got into the standard, and some of us voted no. Now we have a much…

I can’t speak to the C++ contract design — it’s possible bad choices were made. But contracts in general are absolutely exactly what C++ needs for the next step of its evolution. Programming languages used for correct-by-design software (Ada, C++, Rust) need to enable deep integration with proof assistants to allow showing arbitrary properties statically instead of via testing, and contracts are /the/ key part of tha…

C++ is the last language I'd add to any list of languages used for correct-by-design - it's underspecified in terms of semantics with huge areas of UB and IB. Given its vast complexity - at every level from the pre-processor to template meta-programming and concepts, I simply can't imagine any formal denotational definition of the language ever being developed. And without a formal semantics for the language, you cannot even start to think about proof of correctness.

Re: C++26 is done: ISO C++ standards meeting Trip Report

#27

Post by ho_schi »

zarzavat wrote: post #7
mohamedkoubaa wrote: post #2

Biggest open question is whether the small changes to the module system in this standard will actually lead to more widespread adoption

The best thing the C++ WG could do is to spend an entire release cycle working on modules and packaging. It's nice to have new features, but what is really killing C++ is Cargo. I don't think a new generation of developers are going to be inspired to learn a language where you can't simply `cargo add` whatever you need and instead have to go through hell to use a dependency.

I’m still surprised how people ignore Meson. Please test it :)

https://mesonbuild.com/

And Mesons awesome dependency handling:

https://mesonbuild.com/Dependencies.html

https://mesonbuild.com/Using-the-WrapDB.html#using-the-wrapd...

https://nibblestew.blogspot.com/2026/02/c-and-c-dependencies...

I suffered with Java from Any, Maven and Gradle (the oldest is the the best). After reading about GNU Autotools I was wondering why the C/C++ folks still suffer? Right at that time Meson appeared and I skipped the suffering.

    * No XML
    * Simple to read and understand
    * Simple to manage dependencies
    * Simple to use options
Feel free to extend WrapDB.

Re: C++26 is done: ISO C++ standards meeting Trip Report

#28

Post by stackghost »

mgaunard wrote: post #25
luka598 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, arcane cmake configs and or bash build scripts are genuinely off-putting. Also cpp "equivalents" of cargo which afaik are conan and vcpkg are not default and required much more configuring in comparison with cargo. Atleast this was my experience few years ago.

It's fundamentally different; Rust entirely rejects the notion of a stable ABI, and simply builds everything from source. C and C++ are usually stuck in that antiquated thinking that you should build a module, package it into some libraries, install/export the library binaries and associated assets, then import those in other projects. That makes everything slow, inefficient, and widely dangerous. There are of course…

>There are of course good ways of building C++, but those are the exception rather than the standard.

What are the good ways?

Re: C++26 is done: ISO C++ standards meeting Trip Report

#29

Post by NetMageSCW »

mgaunard wrote: post #25
luka598 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, arcane cmake configs and or bash build scripts are genuinely off-putting. Also cpp "equivalents" of cargo which afaik are conan and vcpkg are not default and required much more configuring in comparison with cargo. Atleast this was my experience few years ago.

It's fundamentally different; Rust entirely rejects the notion of a stable ABI, and simply builds everything from source. C and C++ are usually stuck in that antiquated thinking that you should build a module, package it into some libraries, install/export the library binaries and associated assets, then import those in other projects. That makes everything slow, inefficient, and widely dangerous. There are of course…

I would suggest importing binaries and metadata is going to be faster than compiling all the source for that.

Re: C++26 is done: ISO C++ standards meeting Trip Report

#30

Post by hrmtst93837 »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #5
mohamedkoubaa wrote: post #2

Biggest open question is whether the small changes to the module system in this standard will actually lead to more widespread adoption

No. Modules are a failed idea. Really really hard for me to see them becoming mainstream at this point.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN