As an outsider, I know that for many years, the pain of C++ was put up with because of performance. I'm curious: is that still the case? Or, is it legacy code, or a bit of both? Thanks in advance.
A bit of both. Though IMO Rust will take over most of c++ uses because Rust has the crucial RAII feature without garbage collection. For example Rust can be used in Kernel but not c++.
The nutshell series isnât meant to be concise in terms of coverage. Itâs meant to be comprehensive while skipping all the introduction to programming 101 explaining what a variable is or control flow like conditional logic etc that helps new programmers. The nutshell series assumes youâre relatively competent in at least one language and want a more reference-like book to quickly get up to speed.
It is in a nutshell though. In the engineering sense where there is nothing you could remove from the text while being considered complete.
C# 12 in a nutshell is over a 1000 pages. Java in a nutshell is over 600 pages. All of the nutshell series are thick tomes because their intent is to cover everything as a reference. Not to be a 100 page pamphlet.
It does lol. Explaining something in a nutshell means explaining something accurately but in as little time/as few words as possible. It accurately describes the way in which they read. There is no beginner fluff. They just get on with explaining as quickly and briefly as possible.
No, the other commenter is right. âIn a nutshellâ means giving only the main pointsâenough to get the ideaâand it explicitly means skipping the details.
I always assumed the title of the series was just a sarcastic joke.
It's not lol. If somebody explains how to do something in a nutshell then they are explaining how to do it quickly. Your first day on the job somebody might give you go through everything you need to do and then say "And that's what the jobs about in a nutshell". It doesn't mean saying "You're an engineer and you'll do engineering things. That's it in a nutshell", lol, it's meant to be somewhat comperenshive.
I didnât jump on 11 right away. I was more in the 14 realm (but of course was leveraging the 11 features). I think I will probably use the 26 features when they are ready. Reflection really is the game changer, but I feel its going to make compile times ballon even further.
This is so good, when I realized I could click each one I literally was giddy. Haven't used c since my operating systems course in uni so this will be a fun dive now and then.
The first example of compile time reflection with enum to strings. It means that for each call, a function or value is given at compile time for the correct result?
And this replaces the need to manually list strings and enums like some barbarian who writes C, or come up with some convoluted template hell pattern?
A standard package manager will never happen, because the committe doesn't not want that responsibility. They are trying to make package formats though and a few other cross platform things (akin to what Python did IIRC, which allowed UV to proliferate), but they aren't going to be the ones make a standard package manager. The big problem, is that we have package managers in C++, (Conan and VCPKG), but library authors made their projects hostile to package management:
Header only libraries with no CMake, Meson, or any build system support,
Fake header only libraries like stb-libraries which break diamond dependency builds since it requires one and only one .cpp file to include a macro that contains the actual implementation or it breaks, that were made when getting any packages was a pain in C++.
packages with wierd politics about the ecosystem, like GTK, which is hostile to CMake, and thus purposefully tries to not work with CMake,
packages that rely on platform exclusive tools,
packages that make their own tools
Non header only libraries that require manual steps to build
Librarires that only produce binaries, with no source
And many more edge cases. It's a big pain that isn't going to be solved unless each package is manually dealt with on an individual level either by the author, or by someone else (like VCPKG does).
It seems obvious, but the first problem then is that there isn't exactly a standardized build system. It's a huge problem for any newbie to C++ that there isn't really a straightforward answer to "how do you grab a library and build something using it", unless its in the standard libraries, especially given all the stuff they (rightfully) don't want to shove into it. It's weird that the committee is more than happy devoting years to adding all sorts of edge case stuff that 99% of C++ writers will never use, but is actively avoiding addressing the problems that 100% of C++ users are affected by. I can't think of another modern language that doesn't have "build system" considered as part of the language; the only arguable exception I can think of is JS, and that effectively has one since no one uses vanilla JS.
And CMake isn't really a solution, given it's its own language that ends up usually being actually just running a bunch of python scripts. I don't have enough experience with Bazel or Meson to give to speak too much on them, but the fact that there are at least 4 competing build systems (if you count VS's projects) is a massive issue.
The fact that I can't #include a library and have it "just build" is absolutely holding back the language.
I remember vividly my experience trying to build c++ on Windows using eclipse back in like 2012... It was an absolute disaster.
The single biggest improvement the standards committee could implement is a standardized build, dependency, and package manager. If it takes 3 years, it takes 3 years. Just get it done.
I am hostile to CMake too. Itâs complete garbage. Even if GTK is a bad guy, in this case Iâd tend to agree with them. Rallying around a garbage product just because someone you donât like likes it is idiotic.Â
Thanks for the comprehensive answer. So, how will this situation change, or can it even change? And is C++ not having a package manager truly a bad thing for the language?
Parts of the community are trying (Conan and vcpkg mentioned above), but realistically it is not going to change.
In the modern landscape lack of solutions for package management and things like Software Bill Of Materials is atrociously bad for continued adoption in companies. It is not a killing blow by itself, but it is close to being one, especially that the biggest competition for C++ has state-of-art tooling.
packages with wierd politics about the ecosystem, like GTK, which is hostile to CMake, and thus purposefully tries to not work with CMake,
If you are talking about CMake find modules, why should a library not using CMake support their vendor lock-in solution? There is a build system agnostic pkg-config and GTK supports it. It's not perfect by any means (that's why CPS exists), but it works and vcpkg supports it too. If CPS takes off (including in C ecosystem) and GTK refuses to support it then it would be another matter.
packages that make their own tools
That's a completely reasonable requirement. Code generation (the most common use case for library-provided tools) is a useful technique and there is nothing evil or hostile about it.
That's not a great thing, when none of that 'options' work well. vcpkg is an absolute nightmare for any kind of cross compilation, and cmake with fetchcontent is just poor for versioning. Conan worked fine, but then not every dependency is packed for It, the IDE integration is subpar, and you have to know Python to use It. Modules could streamline It a bit, but they are still broken and unlikely to be working as expected anytime soon. FetchConent and git submodules still being the primary choice for dependency management basically proves all options to choose from are subpar. This subpar solutions waste lots of time worldwide of 99% of the cpp devs only halted because the other 1% complains they can't use a streamlined dep management system in their project.
About Conan.
IMO package manager should work out of the box, you get source code from an SCM, you enter a command (like npm install) and it works. And Conan does the opposite by requiring you to have local profiles that are not part of the project you are trying to build.
Also Conan fairly recently went version 2.0 which is completely incompatible with 1.x, down to having to use separate repositories for it. And rewriting all projects to it. And all the build scripts because even CLI has been changed. I looked at it and went "nope".
There's always this divide, early on you need something unique that gets out of the way, when you reached mastery you care less and can fiddle with tooling on the fly.
A committee has the right to choose what it wants or doesn't want to be responsible for, but if their choices are down to personal convenience rather than what their users want, they don't get to complain when their users leave for an ecosystem not driven by such calculus.
People argue whether C++'s smart memory management is "good enough" to compete with Rust, but completely miss the point that it's charades like these that make people leave C++. If you run your ecosystem like amateurs, don't be surprised when users start treating you like ones.
modern C++'s smart memory management is "good enough" to compete with Rust
Well... the current iterator model would need to be thrown away, and if that went away you would need to redesign half of the standard library, and if the shitshow with ABI-compatibility-above-all is any indication....
If you already have a sizeable chunk of C++ code, the only pragmatic solution seems to be to do what Google and Microsoft are doing - leave C++ codebase mostly as is, move new development to another language and if you needed to access old stuff then either access it via FFI or rewrite that specific module in the new language. FFI kind of sucks, but rewriting millions of lines of code in one go is not realistic, but doing so little by little is
Conan and vcpkg work very nicely with CMake. Package management is a solved issue, what remains is a social one of whiny people not wanting to accept reality.
Then the committee should pick one and make it official. A social issue can only be solved by a social solution. As always, rust did it right. Just copy them.Â
It's like asking the committee to pick a compiler and make it official. It would server and change nothing. However they could create a standard package format
i swear people who think like that have extra complex built systems, only to then send someone a binary blob without releasing it has like 58 dynamic libraries it needs to run.Â
C++ has never learned the Y2K lesson. Rust editions are proper 4-digit years
I think this is a bit unfair toward C++, TBH. The names like "C++26" are informal abbreviations of the full names, and the actual names contain the four-digit years.
My opinion is that "C++26" and similar names are no more problematic than any use of two-digit years (which are common throughout life), and won't be for several decades.
But since the current 3-year cycle didn't begin until 2011, and 2011 minus 1998 is 13, which isn't divisible by 3, it looks like we'll hit C++98 again in just 25 cycles...in 2098...but we won't hit C++03 again until 2203.
fells like the standards update pretty fast.
like i know its been a few years, but how old does the standard have to be for you to be sure its implemented fully in popular compilers?
c++11?
And perhaps a little scary. For funsies, one of the primary proposal authors wrote a json to cpp generator on the flight back from Europe. One can only imagine what the hard core meta programmers will do, given some time. Still I wonât miss writing mindless serialization code.
They really should get rid of macros before adding another meta-programming technique. Now I will have to deal with macros, templates and reflection all mixed in the same codebase.
They really should get rid of macros before adding another meta-programming technique.
There is zero chance this would have happened, nor would it.
Macros do a number of things that have had no replacement. Even assuming that reflection gets us to the point where macros' use cases have been entirely supplanted by other things, which I doubt is even true anyway, IMO the only reasonable way to handle things is to have at least one standards edition of transition time where both are supported. I would argue that it should be at least two or three.
I'm really sad that P2561R2 didn't make it through. I use exception-less at work and that means at least three more years of using the same stupid boilerplate macros to propagate errors.
/u/BarryRevzin as someone with absolutely no understanding of the process, is this something that just didn't get traction or is there pushback about this?
Oh wow, thank you for posting this. I've shifted from c++ to rust for personal projects a while ago, so I've gotten really used to the ? Operator for quick error handling (and the ability to add context to errors as they bubble up).
If c++ were to get this, speaking solely to an ? Operator, that would be beyond huge for making the language visually easier at glance to grok.
Can we worry about the fact that essentially no one has implemented the major C++20 change (modules) before going off and making 2 new versions that do nothing to address the myriad problems holding it back?
All the major compilers have support for modules now with GCC joining earlier this year. While itâs not perfect, it was a major redesign of the compilation system and was bound to take a while. Iâve been using modules in my personal projects and there are major libraries like Vulkan-Hpp which have module implementations. Itâs just a matter of getting module versions of libraries going, which I foresee happening more now that adoption has finally started to catch up.Â
So is this graph inaccurate then, where the only ones to actually support modules (with asterisks) are MS, and even there, not in the most recent VS (2022)?
It paints a perhaps inaccurate picture because the full module spec includes a lot of (what I would consider) ancillary features, like Header Units, which are fiendishly difficult to implement, from my understanding, and were ultimately just meant to be a stepping stone for converting header files to modules quickly.Â
I think itâs fair to say the support for modules still is getting (and in need of) improvements, but MSVC and Clang support has been pretty solid, Iâve been using it with CLion and had only a few issues with IntelliSense for libraries without using declarations in their module filesâotherwise it works great for all my own code.Â
For new projects Modules definitely seems like the way to go now, itâs probably going to be a bit more time before larger existing projects can be converted over but C++ programmers have enough tooling support now to begin exploring it, in my opinion.
They should just stop kicking this dead horse. Everyoneâs moved to Rust except legacy codebases (which arenât going to get updated to a new language version anyway). The real C++26 lives at rust-lang.org!
Although I really don't like modern c++ and all the bullshit stuff they're constantly adding, saying it's a 'dead horse' is completely wrong and stupid.
Rust is growing but I don't see it replacing all c++ code base for many reasons, it won't go away anytime soon.
Piisthree@reddit
.....I'm still getting used to c++11 :(
night0x63@reddit
đ CPP language... Each new spec is like five more boost libraries haha.
Coworker has a funny book for like c++11 in a nutshell... 1200 pages. 1200. đÂ
skytomorrownow@reddit
As an outsider, I know that for many years, the pain of C++ was put up with because of performance. I'm curious: is that still the case? Or, is it legacy code, or a bit of both? Thanks in advance.
night0x63@reddit
A bit of both. Though IMO Rust will take over most of c++ uses because Rust has the crucial RAII feature without garbage collection. For example Rust can be used in Kernel but not c++.
Independent-Ad-8531@reddit
Well there was no update in 13 years before c++11. It was quite a big update.
lelanthran@reddit
Well, there was the '03 C++ standard.
Independent-Ad-8531@reddit
Which was a pure big fix release with the only new feature being value initialization. So c++ standardized and "finished" when 0x came around.
nerd5code@reddit
<strstream>was also added to the header list.farmdve@reddit
Five more libaries and ten more colons
My::library::that::does::this::and::that.
night0x63@reddit
New staff will ... Just straight up wreck you haha
qualia-assurance@reddit
The nutshell series isnât meant to be concise in terms of coverage. Itâs meant to be comprehensive while skipping all the introduction to programming 101 explaining what a variable is or control flow like conditional logic etc that helps new programmers. The nutshell series assumes youâre relatively competent in at least one language and want a more reference-like book to quickly get up to speed.
BetterAd7552@reddit
Did you miss the 1200 pages bit? That's not a nutshell.
qualia-assurance@reddit
It is in a nutshell though. In the engineering sense where there is nothing you could remove from the text while being considered complete.
C# 12 in a nutshell is over a 1000 pages. Java in a nutshell is over 600 pages. All of the nutshell series are thick tomes because their intent is to cover everything as a reference. Not to be a 100 page pamphlet.
categorie@reddit
Prime r/ConfidentlyWrong material right here
night0x63@reddit
That's "in a COMPREHENSIVE" not in a nutshellÂ
bearicorn@reddit
Ok whatâs your point? C++ didnât name the book
Psychoscattman@reddit
Thats not what "in a nutshell" means. It means to give the most concise explanation possible. There is no requirement for being "considered complete".
its just a dumb title :D
qualia-assurance@reddit
It does lol. Explaining something in a nutshell means explaining something accurately but in as little time/as few words as possible. It accurately describes the way in which they read. There is no beginner fluff. They just get on with explaining as quickly and briefly as possible.
S0phon@reddit
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/in-a-nutshell
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/in-a-nutshell
https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/in-a-nutshell
GrandOpener@reddit
No, the other commenter is right. âIn a nutshellâ means giving only the main pointsâenough to get the ideaâand it explicitly means skipping the details.
I always assumed the title of the series was just a sarcastic joke.
VictoryMotel@reddit
Seems like rationalization.
qualia-assurance@reddit
It's not lol. If somebody explains how to do something in a nutshell then they are explaining how to do it quickly. Your first day on the job somebody might give you go through everything you need to do and then say "And that's what the jobs about in a nutshell". It doesn't mean saying "You're an engineer and you'll do engineering things. That's it in a nutshell", lol, it's meant to be somewhat comperenshive.
night0x63@reddit
Always fing cracks me up. In a nutshell... Lol. Fing crush your toes with weight.
night0x63@reddit
Oh my bad. I guess they just put the wrong title ... They SHOULD have put "in a COMPREHENSIVE COVERS EVERYTHING" đÂ
1200+ bloody pages. Cracks me up everyone I walk by.Â
FullPoet@reddit
tbf, I have C11 and .NET 7 in a nutshell and thats 800 pages.
VictoryMotel@reddit
You need one for C++11, not like C++11
night0x63@reddit
I said like because I couldn't remember if it was c++ TR1, 11, 14, 17, 20, etc etc
def-pri-pub@reddit
I still used 17 primarily, with some 20 features here and there.
Piisthree@reddit
Yeah, 17 seemed to be the 11++ that I needed to kind of fix up some of the oversights from 11 which itself was a good send at the time.
def-pri-pub@reddit
I didnât jump on 11 right away. I was more in the 14 realm (but of course was leveraging the 11 features). I think I will probably use the 26 features when they are ready. Reflection really is the game changer, but I feel its going to make compile times ballon even further.
NewMarzipan3134@reddit
You fools! This is just a plot by big pharma to sell more headache medicine!
Axman6@reddit
In ten years.
fouronnes@reddit
I created and maintain the the C++ Iceberg meme for easy cataloging of C++ footguns. I look forward to C++26 additions. PRs are welcome!
NewMarzipan3134@reddit
That's pretty goddamned funny lmao
Axman6@reddit
I know very little C++ (despite now being responsible for maintaining an embedded C++ web server, hmmm) but this made me đ°
aka-rider@reddit
Bjarne Stroustrup (the creator of C++) rates himself at 7/10 for C++ knowledge
aka-rider@reddit
Nice!
Also leaving this here https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/deep-c/9626718Â
TheWaggishGamer@reddit
This is so good, when I realized I could click each one I literally was giddy. Haven't used c since my operating systems course in uni so this will be a fun dive now and then.
gracicot@reddit
I wish I didn't have to deal with this
Iggyhopper@reddit
The first example of compile time reflection with enum to strings. It means that for each call, a function or value is given at compile time for the correct result?
And this replaces the need to manually list strings and enums like some barbarian who writes C, or come up with some convoluted template hell pattern?
lambdacoresw@reddit
What about package management?Â
Plazmatic@reddit
A standard package manager will never happen, because the committe doesn't not want that responsibility. They are trying to make package formats though and a few other cross platform things (akin to what Python did IIRC, which allowed UV to proliferate), but they aren't going to be the ones make a standard package manager. The big problem, is that we have package managers in C++, (Conan and VCPKG), but library authors made their projects hostile to package management:
And many more edge cases. It's a big pain that isn't going to be solved unless each package is manually dealt with on an individual level either by the author, or by someone else (like VCPKG does).
verrius@reddit
It seems obvious, but the first problem then is that there isn't exactly a standardized build system. It's a huge problem for any newbie to C++ that there isn't really a straightforward answer to "how do you grab a library and build something using it", unless its in the standard libraries, especially given all the stuff they (rightfully) don't want to shove into it. It's weird that the committee is more than happy devoting years to adding all sorts of edge case stuff that 99% of C++ writers will never use, but is actively avoiding addressing the problems that 100% of C++ users are affected by. I can't think of another modern language that doesn't have "build system" considered as part of the language; the only arguable exception I can think of is JS, and that effectively has one since no one uses vanilla JS.
And CMake isn't really a solution, given it's its own language that ends up usually being actually just running a bunch of python scripts. I don't have enough experience with Bazel or Meson to give to speak too much on them, but the fact that there are at least 4 competing build systems (if you count VS's projects) is a massive issue.
superxpro12@reddit
The fact that I can't #include a library and have it "just build" is absolutely holding back the language.
I remember vividly my experience trying to build c++ on Windows using eclipse back in like 2012... It was an absolute disaster.
The single biggest improvement the standards committee could implement is a standardized build, dependency, and package manager. If it takes 3 years, it takes 3 years. Just get it done.
billie_parker@reddit
Isn't there? Grab the files and compile it into your project.
Or if you don't want that, then grab the header files and compiled libraries and link to them.
Not gonna pretend this isn't a pain, but don't pretend that there's not a way to do this.
ggtsu_00@reddit
All these issues are the result of not having a standard or specification for library and code packaging and distribution in C++ for so long.
uCodeSherpa@reddit
Itâs a bit weird to paint GTK as the bad guys in being hostile to CMake.Â
Perhaps if CMake wasnât such utter shit? GTK has zero reason to adopt it.
LiftingRecipient420@reddit
Knowing what I know about GNOME and GTK... Yeah I have little doubt in my mind that they're the bad guys here.
uCodeSherpa@reddit
What do you know about Gnome and GTK?
I am hostile to CMake too. Itâs complete garbage. Even if GTK is a bad guy, in this case Iâd tend to agree with them. Rallying around a garbage product just because someone you donât like likes it is idiotic.Â
LiftingRecipient420@reddit
I'm not rallying around cmake, I don't care any cmake. I do know GNOME/GTK are a kinda toxic and difficult community though.
TomKavees@reddit
"It is garbage, but it is a widely supported garbage!" đ¤Ł
lambdacoresw@reddit
Thanks for the comprehensive answer. So, how will this situation change, or can it even change? And is C++ not having a package manager truly a bad thing for the language?
TomKavees@reddit
Parts of the community are trying (Conan and vcpkg mentioned above), but realistically it is not going to change.
In the modern landscape lack of solutions for package management and things like Software Bill Of Materials is atrociously bad for continued adoption in companies. It is not a killing blow by itself, but it is close to being one, especially that the biggest competition for C++ has state-of-art tooling.
equeim@reddit
If you are talking about CMake find modules, why should a library not using CMake support their vendor lock-in solution? There is a build system agnostic pkg-config and GTK supports it. It's not perfect by any means (that's why CPS exists), but it works and vcpkg supports it too. If CPS takes off (including in C ecosystem) and GTK refuses to support it then it would be another matter.
That's a completely reasonable requirement. Code generation (the most common use case for library-provided tools) is a useful technique and there is nothing evil or hostile about it.
kisielk@reddit
The great thing about C++ package management is that there are so many options to choose from.
dsffff22@reddit
That's not a great thing, when none of that 'options' work well. vcpkg is an absolute nightmare for any kind of cross compilation, and cmake with fetchcontent is just poor for versioning. Conan worked fine, but then not every dependency is packed for It, the IDE integration is subpar, and you have to know Python to use It. Modules could streamline It a bit, but they are still broken and unlikely to be working as expected anytime soon.
FetchConentand git submodules still being the primary choice for dependency management basically proves all options to choose from are subpar. This subpar solutions waste lots of time worldwide of 99% of the cpp devs only halted because the other 1% complains they can't use a streamlined dep management system in their project.RussianMadMan@reddit
About Conan.
IMO package manager should work out of the box, you get source code from an SCM, you enter a command (like npm install) and it works. And Conan does the opposite by requiring you to have local profiles that are not part of the project you are trying to build.
Also Conan fairly recently went version 2.0 which is completely incompatible with 1.x, down to having to use separate repositories for it. And rewriting all projects to it. And all the build scripts because even CLI has been changed. I looked at it and went "nope".
TomKavees@reddit
Well then, that's the best what the ecosystem has :(
biledemon85@reddit
git submodules is the PRIMARY choice... good lord. I used that once for a python project, never again.
lambdacoresw@reddit
Doesn't this actually become a disadvantage for C++ then? People praise Cargo.
NineThreeFour1@reddit
I'm entirely convinced that the comment you all replied to in earnest was sarcasm.
kisielk@reddit
Oh it definitely was
agumonkey@reddit
There's always this divide, early on you need something unique that gets out of the way, when you reached mastery you care less and can fiddle with tooling on the fly.
ShinyHappyREM@reddit
People don't seem to be able to spot sarcasm these days...
kisielk@reddit
Yeah I think my joke flew way over some heads
hardware2win@reddit
Thats actually disadvantage
strongdoctor@reddit
tbf I have yet to see a language where multiple options is in any way good
serious_cheese@reddit
What about go fuck yourself? - C++ committee
GeneReddit123@reddit
A committee has the right to choose what it wants or doesn't want to be responsible for, but if their choices are down to personal convenience rather than what their users want, they don't get to complain when their users leave for an ecosystem not driven by such calculus.
People argue whether C++'s smart memory management is "good enough" to compete with Rust, but completely miss the point that it's charades like these that make people leave C++. If you run your ecosystem like amateurs, don't be surprised when users start treating you like ones.
TomKavees@reddit
Well... the current iterator model would need to be thrown away, and if that went away you would need to redesign half of the standard library, and if the shitshow with ABI-compatibility-above-all is any indication....
If you already have a sizeable chunk of C++ code, the only pragmatic solution seems to be to do what Google and Microsoft are doing - leave C++ codebase mostly as is, move new development to another language and if you needed to access old stuff then either access it via FFI or rewrite that specific module in the new language. FFI kind of sucks, but rewriting millions of lines of code in one go is not realistic, but doing so little by little is
Superb_Garlic@reddit
Conan and vcpkg work very nicely with CMake. Package management is a solved issue, what remains is a social one of whiny people not wanting to accept reality.
CommunismDoesntWork@reddit
Then the committee should pick one and make it official. A social issue can only be solved by a social solution. As always, rust did it right. Just copy them.Â
Superb_Garlic@reddit
Yes, exactly like how they picked one compiler đ
Just go with what's de facto standard already and stop whining.
gracicot@reddit
It's like asking the committee to pick a compiler and make it official. It would server and change nothing. However they could create a standard package format
PaideiaDilemma@reddit
i swear people who think like that have extra complex built systems, only to then send someone a binary blob without releasing it has like 58 dynamic libraries it needs to run.Â
sephirostoy@reddit
Out of scope of the standard committee, and it's preferable to remain as such.
def-pri-pub@reddit
Lol. Itâs the wild wild west, and will continue to be so.
Maybe-monad@reddit
We have Maybe PackageManager
imatranknee@reddit
vcpkg
aboukirev@reddit
Why work on an outdated version. There is already C++ 98 :)
Middlewarian@reddit
Back to the future. I think they've made some wrong turns and am still here to help pick up the pieces in terms of my on-line code generator.
aboukirev@reddit
C++ has never learned the Y2K lesson. Rust editions are proper 4-digit years, for example, even though all of them are in this millennium.
evaned@reddit
I think this is a bit unfair toward C++, TBH. The names like "C++26" are informal abbreviations of the full names, and the actual names contain the four-digit years.
My opinion is that "C++26" and similar names are no more problematic than any use of two-digit years (which are common throughout life), and won't be for several decades.
iceman012@reddit
Middlewarian@reddit
Yeah, agree. Rust has some strengths. Although I'm in a small minority I use 4-digit years when talking about C++.
xeow@reddit
Hmm. Due to modular arithmetic, with 3 and 100 having no common factors, it takes 300 years for a 2-digit 3-year cycle to repeat:
20(11), 20(14), 20(17), 20(20), 20(23), 20(26), 20(29), 20(32), 20(35), 20(38), 20(41), 20(44), 20(47), 20(50), 20(53), 20(56), 20(59), 20(62), 20(65), 20(68), 20(71), 20(74), 20(77), 20(80), 20(83), 20(86), 20(89), 20(92), 20(95), 20(98), 21(01), 21(04), 21(07), 21(10), 21(13), 21(16), 21(19), 21(22), 21(25), 21(28), 21(31), 21(34), 21(37), 21(40), 21(43), 21(46), 21(49), 21(52), 21(55), 21(58), 21(61), 21(64), 21(67), 21(70), 21(73), 21(76), 21(79), 21(82), 21(85), 21(88), 21(91), 21(94), 21(97), 22(00), 22(03), 22(06), 22(09), 22(12), 22(15), 22(18), 22(21), 22(24), 22(27), 22(30), 22(33), 22(36), 22(39), 22(42), 22(45), 22(48), 22(51), 22(54), 22(57), 22(60), 22(63), 22(66), 22(69), 22(72), 22(75), 22(78), 22(81), 22(84), 22(87), 22(90), 22(93), 22(96), 22(99), 23(02), 23(05), 23(08), 23(11).
But since the current 3-year cycle didn't begin until 2011, and 2011 minus 1998 is 13, which isn't divisible by 3, it looks like we'll hit C++98 again in just 25 cycles...in 2098...but we won't hit C++03 again until 2203.
HarmadeusZex@reddit
So its better ?
interjay@reddit
It's 3 better than C++23.
Pandorarl@reddit
What do we do when we get to 2098?
AncientLine9262@reddit
Anyone got a summary of the changes?
ProgramTheWorld@reddit
Reflection, Sender/Receiver, and Contracts
brigadierfrog@reddit
Yes but does it still let me segfault by default?
segv@reddit
Of course â¤ď¸
mccoyn@reddit
Thatâs implementation defined (all implementations defined it that way).
campbellm@reddit
If I code it, it does.
bjamse@reddit
fells like the standards update pretty fast. like i know its been a few years, but how old does the standard have to be for you to be sure its implemented fully in popular compilers? c++11?
turtlecopter@reddit
Do I need to watch the first 25 C++'s to understand this one?
G_Morgan@reddit
No you need to start with C.
guygizmo@reddit
There is no understanding it, no matter how many you've watched.
ryobiguy@reddit
I think by the time you get through the first dozen, you'll start forgetting the first ones.
probablyabot45@reddit
I think by the time you get through the first 3 you'll unalive yourself.Â
Forbizzle@reddit
So ++23 came out in 2024 and ++26 comes out in 2025?
TheOtherHobbes@reddit
It's the language of the future.
BlueGoliath@reddit (OP)
Compile time metadata reflection is really cool.
azswcowboy@reddit
And perhaps a little scary. For funsies, one of the primary proposal authors wrote a json to cpp generator on the flight back from Europe. One can only imagine what the hard core meta programmers will do, given some time. Still I wonât miss writing mindless serialization code.
https://brevzin.github.io/c++/2025/06/26/json-reflection/
mccoyn@reddit
They really should get rid of macros before adding another meta-programming technique. Now I will have to deal with macros, templates and reflection all mixed in the same codebase.
evaned@reddit
There is zero chance this would have happened, nor would it.
Macros do a number of things that have had no replacement. Even assuming that reflection gets us to the point where macros' use cases have been entirely supplanted by other things, which I doubt is even true anyway, IMO the only reasonable way to handle things is to have at least one standards edition of transition time where both are supported. I would argue that it should be at least two or three.
azswcowboy@reddit
Modules do put the kibosh on macros - hopefully theyâll be portably usable soon.
EugeneDestroyer@reddit
isn't this just json deserialization?
CloudsOfMagellan@reddit
At compile time
billie_parker@reddit
A dribble of ejac just left my pen tip
BlueGoliath@reddit (OP)
Scary? Maybe. But the usefulness for metadata analysis and dynamic code generation is insane, especially for language bindings.
I wonder if code generated can be looped back. It would allow for dynamic parametrized type aliases which would be useful.
mr_clauford@reddit
We got C++ 26 before GTA VI smh
SKabanov@reddit
Don't worry, we can always dunk on Star Citizen
neondirt@reddit
Maybe they're also waiting for C++ 26? Yeah, that must be it...
BloomAppleOrangeSeat@reddit
This is more like the trailer for C++26, so no yet. GTA 6 could still catch up.
matthieum@reddit
Given that modules (C++20) are still hardly usable in the ecosystem... there's ample time for GTA 6 indeed.
Serialk@reddit
I'm really sad that P2561R2 didn't make it through. I use exception-less at work and that means at least three more years of using the same stupid boilerplate macros to propagate errors.
/u/BarryRevzin as someone with absolutely no understanding of the process, is this something that just didn't get traction or is there pushback about this?
hak8or@reddit
Oh wow, thank you for posting this. I've shifted from c++ to rust for personal projects a while ago, so I've gotten really used to the ? Operator for quick error handling (and the ability to add context to errors as they bubble up).
If c++ were to get this, speaking solely to an ? Operator, that would be beyond huge for making the language visually easier at glance to grok.
bring_back_the_v10s@reddit
Kudos to all the C++ dev who put up with all that language bloat.
guygizmo@reddit
I'm just going to sit here with a bowl of popcorn as I have fun spending my free time coding a game for vintage hardware in C90.
parawaa@reddit
std::println!("Hello, Word!");Complete_Piccolo9620@reddit
I would rather just write a codegen than learn and stumble my way into using this. So..meh
RockstarArtisan@reddit
Are contacts in? Bjarne apparently will recommend against using them.
Plazmatic@reddit
I according to the video I believe they are.
Retticle@reddit
Did they remove any cruft and add safety features?
gracicot@reddit
They did remove a bunch of outdated library features that was solved by newer things.
verrius@reddit
Can we worry about the fact that essentially no one has implemented the major C++20 change (modules) before going off and making 2 new versions that do nothing to address the myriad problems holding it back?
decaffinatedplease@reddit
All the major compilers have support for modules now with GCC joining earlier this year. While itâs not perfect, it was a major redesign of the compilation system and was bound to take a while. Iâve been using modules in my personal projects and there are major libraries like Vulkan-Hpp which have module implementations. Itâs just a matter of getting module versions of libraries going, which I foresee happening more now that adoption has finally started to catch up.Â
verrius@reddit
So is this graph inaccurate then, where the only ones to actually support modules (with asterisks) are MS, and even there, not in the most recent VS (2022)?
decaffinatedplease@reddit
It paints a perhaps inaccurate picture because the full module spec includes a lot of (what I would consider) ancillary features, like Header Units, which are fiendishly difficult to implement, from my understanding, and were ultimately just meant to be a stepping stone for converting header files to modules quickly.Â
I think itâs fair to say the support for modules still is getting (and in need of) improvements, but MSVC and Clang support has been pretty solid, Iâve been using it with CLion and had only a few issues with IntelliSense for libraries without using declarations in their module filesâotherwise it works great for all my own code.Â
For new projects Modules definitely seems like the way to go now, itâs probably going to be a bit more time before larger existing projects can be converted over but C++ programmers have enough tooling support now to begin exploring it, in my opinion.
Linguistic-mystic@reddit
They should just stop kicking this dead horse. Everyoneâs moved to Rust except legacy codebases (which arenât going to get updated to a new language version anyway). The real C++26 lives at rust-lang.org!
BlueGoliath@reddit (OP)
We get it, you like the furry language.
MartinLaSaucisse@reddit
Although I really don't like modern c++ and all the bullshit stuff they're constantly adding, saying it's a 'dead horse' is completely wrong and stupid.
Rust is growing but I don't see it replacing all c++ code base for many reasons, it won't go away anytime soon.
lambdacoresw@reddit
Rust? No thanks. I prefer C++ althoughÂ
CodeCompost@reddit
C++ is Obsolete!
Awesan@reddit
What a big, beautiful spec.