> If it's a headers-only library in a language such as C++, if the project is not dead then the very least anyone would expect from it is being updated to support any of the modern C++ versions.

Did I miss a new C++ version released <2 days ago perhaps?

▲

locknitpicker 4 days ago | parent [-]

> Did I miss a new C++ version released <2 days ago perhaps?

You certainly are missing something. C++26 was officially released 4 months ago, and support is slowly being rolled out to compilers and packages.

https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/compiler_support/26.html

If you somehow believe this kind of work is done in a couple of days, that's a good way to explain to the world how oblivious you are about the topic you are discussing.

▲

lelanthran 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

> If you somehow believe this kind of work is done in a couple of days, that's a good way to explain to the world how oblivious you are about the topic you are discussing.

And, in turn, you appear to be oblivious to the point - the release cadence of this best-case scenario still means like a decade between updates to the project.

C++26 was released 4months ago; pointless to update it until compilers and deps are updated. So, best case is maybe you'll have complete bug-tested support in the supported compilers in 2030.

If we're looking at 2035-ish for the next release, we're still only looking at 2040 before you update.

You still have to take into account that updating might not even be necessary. It's not like C++ < C++26 suddenly doesn't work.

▲

locknitpicker 4 days ago | parent [-]

> And, in turn, you appear to be oblivious to the point - the release cadence of this best-case scenario still means like a decade between updates to the project.

It doesn't seem you are managing to think the issue all the way through. Even if you believe you can claim that release cadence is a factor, C++26 is the latest release in a process that outputs a new version every two years. Therefore, your argument would lead you to agree that there is a greater need for maintenance as there are more releases still evolving.

> C++26 was released 4months ago; pointless to update it until compilers and deps are updated.

This is a silly argument to make. At best you are trying to argue that you somehow believe maintenance needs aren't as urgent. Except urgency is irrelevant to the discussion, and the whole argument is derived from specious reasoning to begin with.

It sounds like you are fully invested in contrarianism and not invested at all in thinking about the issue you are trying to discuss. This is not the best use of anyone's time.

▲

lelanthran 4 days ago | parent [-]

You'd come to correct conclusions if you attacked arguments not people.

Right now you don't stand a chance.

▲

locknitpicker 3 days ago | parent [-]

> You'd come to correct conclusions if you attacked arguments not people.

I refuted what arguments you tried to put together by pointing the specious reasoning behind them.

You chose to avoid the issue because you know you can't put together an argument in it's defense. No need to try to come up with an exit, mate.

	▲	lelanthran 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		> I refuted what arguments you tried to put together by pointing the specious reasoning behind them. You're confusing me with the person at the top of the thread. My response to you was to point you in a subtle way that you are attacking people, not arguments. Read through your posts - the bulk of your "refutation" is basically calling the other person ignorant. Ironic, I know.

▲

SkiFire13 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I think you lost the original context:

> If a project hasn't gotten a new commit in 2 days then the project is claimed dead.

You don't need a commit every day to support C++26, and surely not every day for 3 years until the next major version releases.