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

81–90 of 437 posts

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

#81

Post by uecker »

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…

"That makes everything slow, inefficient, and widely dangerous."

There nothing faster and more efficient than building C programs. I also not sure what is dangerous in having libraries. C++ is quite different though.

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

#82

Post by forrestthewoods »

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.

I emphatically agree. C++ needs a standard build system that doesn’t suck ass. Most people would agree it needs a package manager although I think that is actually debatable.

Neither of those things require modules as currently defined.

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

#83

Post by devnullbrain »

AyanamiKaine wrote: post #34
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.

Can you explain why you think modules are a failed idea? Because not that many use them right now? Personally I use them in new projects using XMake and it just works.

I'm not the PC but I think you miss most of the pain points due to: 'personal' projects.

There's not a compatible format between different compilers, or even different versions of the same compiler, or even the same versions of the same compiler with different flags.

This seems immediately to create too many permutations of builds for them to be distributable artifacts as we'd use them in other languages. More like a glorified object file cache. So what problem does it even solve?

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

#84

Post by forrestthewoods »

AyanamiKaine wrote: post #34
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.

Can you explain why you think modules are a failed idea? Because not that many use them right now? Personally I use them in new projects using XMake and it just works.

Because as a percentage of global C++ builds they’re used in probably 0.0001% of builds with no line of sight to that improving.

They have effectively zero use outside of hobby projects. I don’t know that any open source C++ library I have ever interacted with even pretends that modules exist.

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

#85

Post by dheera »

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

I frankly wish we'd stop developing C++. It's so hard to keep track of all the new unnecessary toys they're adding to it. I thought I knew C++ until I read some recent C++ code. That's how bad it is.

Meanwhile C++ build system is an abomination. Header files should be unnecessary.

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

#86

Post by stackghost »

dislikedopinion wrote: post #75
stackghost wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly doubt that C++ is what's standing in the way of Ada being popular.

Ada used to be mandated in the US defense industry, but lots of developers and companies preferred C++ and other languages, and for a variety of reasons, the mandate ended, and Ada faded from the spotlight.

>the mandate ended, and Ada faded from the spotlight

Exactly. People stopped using Ada as soon as they were no longer forced to use it.

In other words on its own merits people don't choose it.

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

#87

Post by Waterluvian »

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…

Has any project ever tried to quantify a “complexity budget” and stick to it?

I’m fascinated by the concept of deciding how much complexity (to a human) a feature has. And then the political process of deciding what to remove when everyone agrees something new needs to be accepted.

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

#88

Post by morning-coffee »

lenkite wrote: post #35
mgaunard wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience, no one does build systems right; Cargo included. The standard was initially meant to standardize existing practice. There is no good existing practice. Very large institutions depending heavily on C++ systematically fail to manage the build properly despite large amounts of third party licenses and dedicated build teams. With AI, how you build and integrate together fragmented code bases is even mor…

Speedy convenience beats absolute correctness anyday. Humans are not immortal and have finite amount of time for life and work. If convenience didn't matter, we would all still be coding in assembly or toggling hardware switches.

The Mars Polar Lander and Mars Climate Orbiter missions would beg to differ.

(And "absolute" or other adjectives don't qualify "correctness"... it simply is or isn't.)

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

#89

Post by FpUser »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #76
FpUser wrote: post #64

I am curious what is their strategy to get language to the stage where the US government will make it cosher for new projects

No such strategy is necessary. That discourse was about not using C++ for applications where Java would work just as well. The US government still uses C++ widely for new projects. For some types of applications it is actually the language of choice and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

>"For some types of applications it is actually the language of choice..."

Can you give an example please? And how does it correspond to government ONCD report and other government docs "recommending" "safe" languages like: Rust (noted for its ability to prevent memory-unsafe code), Go, Java, Swift, C#, Ruby, Ada

Among other things I design and implement high performance C++ backends. for some I got SOCS2 Type II certification but I am curious about future. Do not give a flying fuck about what the criteria for military projects as I would not ever touch one even if given a chance.

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

#90

Post by leni536 »

usrnm wrote: post #56
porise wrote: post #23

I don't care until they stop pretending Unicode doesn't exist.

What are you talking about, there is actually too much unicode awareness in C++. Unicode is not the same thing as utf-8. And, frankly, no language does it right, I'm not even sure "right" exists with Unicode

Too much unicode in standard C++? Where?
Post reply on HN