On the one hand, almost everyone (including C++ fans) agrees that the language is too big. On the other hand, comtracts just formalize an existing and useful concept.

▲

nickorlow 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Profiles should (hopefully) rein this in by getting people to start subsetting language features in their codebases

▲

pjmlp 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Let's see, they are still a bit of a dream regarding what they wish for, and what current static analysers can achieve, especially the lifetime one.

	▲	uecker 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I was thinking for implementing borrow-checker like rules for C but after I have seen what SMT solver can do I think it is not necessary to constrain the language in this way.

▲

ape4 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Exactly. Many years ago people used to use C `struct` for objects but then that was formalized as `class`.

▲

tialaramex 8 hours ago | parent [-]

C++ "class" is the exact same user-defined type as C++ "struct" but with different defaults for privacy.

	▲	ahartmetz 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		But C++ "struct" has many more features than C "struct". Virtual functions aka compiler-generated invisible vtables, constructors (initialization functions) and destructors (automagically called deinitialization functions), the whole templates complex of features...