To the people who work on C++ standards: I approve of the current C++ trajectory and please ignore all of the online noise about "the future of C++." To anyone that disagrees severely with the C++ trajectory as stated, please just consider another language, e.g. Rust. I don't want static lifetime checking in C++ and if you want static lifetime checking, please use Rust. I am not a government contractor, if you are a government contractor who must meet bureaucratic risk-averse government requirements, please use Rust. I have an existing development process that works for me and my customers, I have no significant demand for lifetime checking. If your development process is shiny and new and necessitates lifetime checking, then please use Rust. To Rust advocates, you can have the US government and big tech. You can even have Linux. Just leave my existing C++ process alone. It works and the trade offs we have chosen efficiently accomplish our goals.

C++ is on the trajectory to create a future with more safety. Should we do profiles or static lifetime checking (or something else??) is still an open question (and both may be valid). However I'm glad c++ is thinking about that. We have real problems around safety in the real world and people are writing unsafe code even when modern safe code would be easier to write.

Of course it remains to be seen how this all plays out. Static lifetimes can be done good or bad. Profiles can be good or bad. Even if whatever we come up with is done well that doesn't mean people will (I know rust programmers who just put unsafe everywhere).

C++ has lifetime rules just like Rust. They're simply implicit in the code and not enforced by the compiler. Do you prefer the uncertainty of silent miscompilations and undefined behavior to upfront compiler errors?

You're already using a language with a strong type system, so it's confusing to me why you would choose to draw the line here.

Thank you for this. C++ should NOT try to be Rust. I find modern C++ really nice to program in, for the work I'm doing - 3D graphics. The combination of very powerful abstractions and excellent performance is what I'm looking for. I'm more than willing to endure percived lack of safety in the language.

While programming in Rust, I've never thought to myself, "man, this would be so much easier to express in C++". I've plenty of times thought the reverse while programming in C++ though.

Edit: except when interfacing with C APIs.

What I don't understand is why you demand that C++ evolution be halted in a clearly suboptimal position so you don't need to change your processes. Just use the version of C++ that meets your needs, you clearly don't want nor need new developments. You are fine with being locked into bad designs for hash maps and unique ptr due to the (newly invented, in 2011/13) ABI stability being made inviolable, you clearly need no new developments in usability and security.

So why not be honest and just use C++01, or 11, or whatever it is that works for you, and let the rest of the ecosystem actually evolve and keep the language we invested so much effort into as a viable alternative? There's zero benefit, except to MS who want to sell this year's Visual Studio to all the companies with 80's-era C++...

Ok. Please, just use your current C++ standard. But we will go to use the new one with all features we want to use.

On the contrary, why would I not want these things in C++ if I'm developing every project with -fsanitize=address,undefined to catch these types of errors anyway?

Imagine an engineer in any other field acting like this.

"I don't want to install air bags and these shiny safety gadgets into my cars. We have been shipping cars without them for years and it works for us and our customers."

The problem is that it doesn't actually work as well as you think, and you are putting people at risk without realizing it.

[flagged]

The parts of the government that think everything should be written in a memory-safe language (like Rust) are the same parts that already write everything in Java. Most of the high-end systems work is in C++, and that is the type of software where lifetimes and ownership are frequently unknowable at compile-time, obviating Rust's main selling point.