C++26 Disapproved(andreasfertig.com)
58 pointsby thatxliner3 hours ago6 comments
  • skrrtww2 minutes ago
    Personally I'd like to see C++ chill out on new features and maybe sort out the shitshow that is char8_t and std::filesystem.
  • LugosFergus9 minutes ago
    I get why some folks would like to see contracts in the language, but C++ is also buckling due to the shear complexity that's getting tacked on to it. I'd rather see more proposals such as C++26's "erroneous behavior" that attempts to reign in the language's shortcomings.
  • hankbond22 minutes ago
    Maybe my reading comprehension has just nosedived but I could not find where this article discusses what the heck Contracts refers to?
    • AlotOfReading18 minutes ago
      You'll find plenty of info if you search for anything like "c++ contracts" [0], but the short of it is that they're just pre/post conditions on functions. Slightly improved assertions, basically.

      [0] https://en.cppreference.com/cpp/language/contracts

    • SolarNet16 minutes ago
      Its a very inside baseball article. Contracts is a proposed C++ language feature for improving programmable assertions of program state. E.g. a better c++ version of C's assert function. That in theory will improve both safety and performance by letting people add more complex assertions (e.g. pre/post conditions) to functions.
  • ranger_danger31 minutes ago
    Maybe this time could be used to consider memory safety much more seriously.

    EDIT: Would love to know why people are so angry about that?

    • SolarNet7 minutes ago
      The issue that caused this to be voted down is often seen as a memory safety solution (not something I personally 100% agree with, but thats a broad view). And the rest of this release includes other memory safety work. And it was voted down and delayed for apparent political reasons (again not a view I agree with).

      So most people will read your view as hypocritical/misinformed.

    • GalaxyNova22 minutes ago
      Memory safety was solved in 1959 with the invention of lisp
  • vivzkestrel20 minutes ago
    - since you are a part of the voting group, i have a doubt

    - let us say tomorrow everyone were to consider removing all unsigned variables across c++

    - what is the impact in terms of compatibility for all the old c++ applications which i believe would be millions of them if not billions?

    - the reason i ask is they say do not unsigned anything as much as you can because overflowing the bottom below 0 is easy

    - has there ever been any consideration to get rid of unsigned xyz in c++?

  • voakbasda17 minutes ago
    I feel like this is a bellwether event for society at large. Growing impasses between more and more segments of society. Diminishing trust leading to the inability to reach consensus. Maybe it’s just me though.
    • SolarNet10 minutes ago
      Perhaps it is, in this case it would be between money and everyone else specifically. Contracts is a pet project of Microsoft and the heavy money parts of the committee. They've basically shouted down the dissenters, hence the effectively unprecedented action of the rubberstamp portion of the process saying they dont think consensus was reached in a kosher way.
      • Maxatar4 minutes ago
        No one who developed contracts works for Microsoft. Of the like 20 people who contributed to the feature, 4 of them work for Bloomberg, so you could maybe argue that Bloomberg has a vested interest in the feature, but that's really stretching things.

        Support for contracts is fairly broad and spans numerous organizations.