Oof, that first example (the idiomatic C++26 way) looks so foreign if you're mostly used to C++11.

delegate an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I was very curious to see what C++ 26 brings to the table, since I haven't used C++ in a while.

When I saw the 'no boilerplate' example, the very first thought that came to my mind:

This is the ugliest, most cryptic and confusing piece of code I've ever seen. Calling this 'no boilerplate' is an insult to the word 'boilerplate'.

Yeah, I can parse it for a minute or two and I mostly get it.

But if given the choice, I'd choose the C-macro implementation (which is 30+ years old) over this, every time. Or the good old switch case where I understand what's going on.

I understand that reflection is a powerful capability for C++, but the template-meta-cryptic-insanity is just too much to invite me back to this version of the language.

▲

SuperV1234 an hour ago | parent [-]

It is "cryptic" and "ugly" to you just because you're not familiar with it. You'd pick the macro-based implementation because you are familiar with it.

Seeing this argumentation is so tiresome, because it feels like there is a lack of self-awareness regarding what is "familiar" and what isn't, which is subconsciously translated to "ugly" and "bad".

	▲	delegate 34 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Have you ever used other (modern) programming languages ? In a lot of languages, you achieve the same with 1 line of code. It's not about familiarity, it's about the fact that it's a long and convoluted incantation to get the name of an enum. Why do I have to be familiar with all those weird symbols just to do a trivial thing ? Update: Zig: const Color = enum { red, green, blue }; const name = @tagName(Color.red); // "red" Rust: #[derive(Display)] enum Color { Red, Green, Blue } let name = Color::Red.to_string(); // "Red" Clojure: (name :red) => "red"

▲

randusername 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I was a fool to assume that the same forces shaping the ugliness of C++ syntax would not also be at work in C++ 26.

▲

ginko 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Is it? I'm mostly used to (pre-)C++11 and the only unusual operators I see are ^^T (which I presume accesses the metadata info of T) and [:e:] (which I assume somehow casts the enumerator metadata 'e' to a constant value of T).

And template for but I assume that's like inline for like in zig.

▲

CamouflagedKiwi 3 hours ago | parent [-]

requires is also new (not sure exactly when that appeared, it's after the last time I wrote C++ in anger) although I think it's fairly clear what it means. I can only guess at the other two.

Not familiar with Zig but AFAICT `inline for` is about instructing the compiler to unroll the loop, whereas `template for` means it can be evaluated at compile time and each loop iteration can have a different type for the iteration variable. It's a bit crazy but necessary for reflection to work usefully in the way the language sets it up.

	▲	NooneAtAll3 an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		requires is concept, one of big-C-words of ++20
	▲	ginko 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Zig's inline for is also evaluated at comptime: https://ziglang.org/documentation/master/#inline-for

▲

bluGill 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You realize c++11 is closer in age to C++98 than C++26?