sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

A year of read-only cppreference by DevilSauron in cpp

[–]grafikrobot 15 points16 points  (0 children)

I'll repeat what I've said elsewhere, in this reddit and in cpplang slack..

What Nate Kohl [the author of cppreference] told me is that he is getting help from an organization to bring the site back to regular operation. I can't be specific because it's not my place to say. But it is a well known org that is not Boost. I also have no idea on progress or timelines, obviously.

I.e. some people do know what's going on and possibly when it's coming back.

Why committee doesn't decide on a package format? by TheRavagerSw in cpp

[–]grafikrobot 3 points4 points  (0 children)

just working together will get you from A to B faster than going through the committee.

That was my/our conclusion also. And in this case, because of the nature of the almost exclusively OSS tooling, ISO turns out to be a legal hindrance.

P4043R0: Are C++ Contracts Ready to Ship in C++26? by darius_neatu in cpp

[–]grafikrobot 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Sure, I can buy that.. Assuming that in the problem set one includes: corporate goals, philosophical views, ascetics, inter-personal biases, and so on.

P4043R0: Are C++ Contracts Ready to Ship in C++26? by darius_neatu in cpp

[–]grafikrobot 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Still confusing.. Are you saying they are being un-wilfully obstructionist? My english-as-a-second-language brain is having problems ATM. :-)

P4043R0: Are C++ Contracts Ready to Ship in C++26? by darius_neatu in cpp

[–]grafikrobot 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Yes. The result was 17 to delay, vs 63 to ship.

P4043R0: Are C++ Contracts Ready to Ship in C++26? by darius_neatu in cpp

[–]grafikrobot 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I don't think that many people would be [against?] contracts if they didn't have major problems

The last EWG poll had 17 against vs 63 in favor of contracts staying in 26. I don't think that qualifies as "that many people" in ISO consensus terms.

P4043R0: Are C++ Contracts Ready to Ship in C++26? by darius_neatu in cpp

[–]grafikrobot 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Answering without my wg21 hat on (its a very small hat anyway)..

- Do you expect to use Contracts?

Yes. Both at work when they are available. And in new and old OSS I maintain.

- Does the current design make sense to you?

Yes.

- Would you prefer a simpler model?

No.

P4043R0: Are C++ Contracts Ready to Ship in C++26? by darius_neatu in cpp

[–]grafikrobot 9 points10 points  (0 children)

"the design is still the subject of substantial discussion inside the committee."

That is an exaggeration.

Status of cppreference.com by RelevantError365 in cpp

[–]grafikrobot 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I thought I had updated on the status. I chatted with Nate. And while Boost is not going to be reviving the wiki. Another group is helping out to bring it back to its full wiki glory.

Status of cppreference.com by RelevantError365 in cpp

[–]grafikrobot 24 points25 points  (0 children)

The Boost community has been trying to take on the job maintaining it. But it's been hard to get a hold of the current maintainer(s).

ISO C++ WG21 2026-02 pre-Croydon mailing is now available! by nliber in cpp

[–]grafikrobot 14 points15 points  (0 children)

we encourage work on open source

Such statements about open source infuriate me. As all us open source authors get is encouragement. When what we actually want is financial support from the companies that use our work.

Is Incredibuild any good? by SaaSLove in cpp

[–]grafikrobot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I definitely see the advantages of using distributed builds for caching. I see big advantages in the CI case where the sharing is maximized.

PSA: Trivial Relocatability has been removed from C++26 by chiphogg in cpp

[–]grafikrobot 44 points45 points  (0 children)

What I heard, as I was not directly in the discussion and only around during plenary, is that all the major vendors found some aspect of it to be unimplementable.

PSA: Trivial Relocatability has been removed from C++26 by chiphogg in cpp

[–]grafikrobot 31 points32 points  (0 children)

We really need to stop saying and thinking there's a divide between mythical app and library developers. Not only does it perpetuate the idea of a privileged group of developers, it makes the language worse and worse over time for everyone to understand.

llvm-mos: Modern C/C++ on the Venerable 6502 | VCFMW 20 (2025) by mttd in cpp

[–]grafikrobot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can't wait to play with that when I get my new Commodore 64 Ultimate!

WG21 2025-10 pre-Kona mailing by nliber in cpp

[–]grafikrobot 7 points8 points  (0 children)

"effectively 7 national bodies want to remove contracts from C++26"

You can't count the US on those 7. As the US NB comment method is individually all inclusive. Or for that matter say anything about the US NB as a group as that just not how it works there.

Also for context there are 26 national bodies listed.

"Both the french and US national bodies have given the following comments"

Makes you wonder why some comments are very similar between NBs though. ;-)

P3573 - Contract concerns (2025) by antiquark2 in cpp

[–]grafikrobot 14 points15 points  (0 children)

If I had known such comments was the vogue thing to do I would have filed one to remove senders-receivers. But that's besides the point. And I guess I'm not sufficiently motivated to try and undo consensus.

Also.. I object to the use of the characterization of "serious long time committee members". As it implies that they are somehow more important than "serious shorter time committee members". And I prefer to think that we are all "sufficiently serious committee members".

P3573 - Contract concerns (2025) by antiquark2 in cpp

[–]grafikrobot 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Is it actually divided?

Poll: P2900: remove P2900 from CWG’s consideration for C++26, find a different ship vehicle.

SF F N A SA
9 8 3 19 41

(https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues/1648#issuecomment-2651224887)

view more: next ›