Remix clone Hacker News

My C++ knowledge is pretty weak in this regard but couldn't you link different compilation units together just like you link shared libraries? I mean it sounds like a nightmare from a layout-my-code perspective, but dumb analogy: foo/a/* is compiled as C++11 code and foo/b/ is compiled as C++20 code and foo/bin/ uses both? (Not fun to use.. but possible?)

Is that an ABI thing? I thought all versions up to and including C++23 were ABI compatible.

▲

zozbot234 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

How does foo/bin use both when foo/a/* and foo/b/ use ABI-incompatible versions of stdlib types, perhaps in their public interfaces? This can easily lead to breakage in interop across foo/a/* and foo/b/ .

▲

bluGill 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What is the point? C++ is mostly ABI compatible (std::string broke between C++98 and C++11 in GNU - but we can ignore something from 13 years ago). The is very little valid C++11 code that won't build as C++23 without changes (I can't think of anything, but if something exists it is probably something really bad where in C++11 you shouldn't have done that).

Now there is the possibility that someone could come up with a new breaking syntax and want a C++26 marker. However nobody really wants that. In part because C++98 code rebuilt as C++11 often saw a significant runtime improvement. Even today C code built as C++23 probably runs faster than when compiled as C (the exceptions are rare - generally either the code doesn't compile as C++, or it compiles but runs wrong)

	▲	Maxatar 9 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		There are plenty of things between C++11 and C++23 that have been removed and hence won't compile: Implicit capture of this in lambdas by copy. std::iterator removed. std::uncaught_exception() removed. throw () exception specification removed. std::strstream, std::istrstream, and std::ostrstream removed. std::random_shuffle removed. std::mem_fun and std::mem_fun_ref, std::bind1st and std::bind2nd removed. There are numerous other things as well, but this is just off the top of my head.
	▲	wink an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		There is no inherent point, I was just wondering, if it's possible, why people don't use such a homegrown module layout like Rust editions in C++. I only ever worked in a couple of codebases where we had one standard for everything that was compiled and I suppose that's what 90% of people do, or link static libs, or shared libs, so externalize at an earlier step. So purely a thought experiment.