|
| ▲ | ameliaquining an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| The primary reason this hasn't happened is that it'd break C++'s de facto stable ABI (even though officially there's no such thing). For a lot more context, see https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2020/p20... and https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2019/p18.... Spoiler alert: The option described as "the sort of leadership failing that I pray we can avoid" is what ended up happening. |
| |
| ▲ | charcircuit 11 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Who cares about the ABI when the current ABI has a bunch of bad issues with it. For any backwards compatibility thing there is always AI that can rewrite old code. |
|
|
| ▲ | forrestthewoods 26 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| No. The problem isn’t that std::regex is slow and badly designed. It’s that std::regex exists at all. C++ is unique in that it defines a spec for STL but not implementation. The result is something that is both overspecified and underspecified. Including batteries is fine. Including a spec for what the batteries should look like is such a profoundly bad idea that no other major language does it. |
|
| ▲ | failbuffer 39 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| As an avid non-C++ programmer, can I suggest doing something about the build/module system? I shouldn't have to learn a separate language (CMake) and figure out the right include files to pull in a library. I mean, I mainly say this to joke because it's probably unfixable at this point, but whenever I mess with it, I'm struck by how hard/opaque C++ makes this problem compared to most other languages. |
| |
|
| ▲ | stingraycharles 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Ranges need work as well, there’s lot of opportunity to improve things there. |
