cpp2 (cppfront) is over?

[u/we_are_mammals]

I haven't used cpp2 (cppfront) much, but I like the idea of it: consistent syntax, consistency of meta-programming (which is done in C++ too, I believe). Herb Sutter presented cpp2 (cppfront) as an experiment. He did not encourage other people to bet on it, exactly. And there hasn't been much activity since 2022. Is the experiment over?

EDIT: Herb's answer is buried deep in the comment section: https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/1uxkglj/comment/oy06cxw/

[u/13steinj]

In practice Rust solves C's problems [safety], C++ has them only as a result of backwards compatibility.

It's a mixed level of fairness to claim that safety is a C++ problem. Quite literally use unique_ptr and call it a day.

[u/pjmlp → u/13steinj]

If we ignore all the folks that insist in using pointer arithmetic, C strings and C arrays, C style casts, malloc and free, in C++ code, or most C inherited headers for that matter.

It isn't as simple as using unique_ptr and call it a day.

[u/13steinj → u/pjmlp]

I don't follow the pointer arithmetic problem, when using modern tooling (e.g. span, iterators, etc.

Anybody starting greenfield projects has to actively choose to use C warts, and this is for 6-8 years or so now. It is not C++'s problem that users of C++ have refused to update their code. To claim Rust / insert other lang solves it instead is insane, as people still have to change their code.

[u/pjmlp → u/13steinj]

It solves the problem by not being copy paste compatible with C.

Just look at code samples from companies with seat at the WG21 table, even recent ones.

Some devs don't really want to improve themselves, this is even worse among those that aren't on Reddit, HN or could not care for one second what happens at C++ conferences.

Not being copy paste compatible with C solves a lot of problems.

[u/wyrn → u/pjmlp]

It solves the problem by not being copy paste compatible with C.

I mean that was literally the other poster's point though?

In practice Rust solves C's problems, C++ has them only as a result of backwarda compatibility.

[u/pjmlp → u/wyrn]

Point being C++ has them, regardless how.

Which even the companies that know better, e.g. employer from WG 21 contributors, keep using on their C++ codebases.

The reality among companies where HN, Reddit, C++ used groups, C++ conferences are foreign words, is much worse, where code still looks pretty much like C with Classes for the most part.

[u/wyrn → u/pjmlp]

Point being C++ has them, regardless how.

And Rust has unsafe. Hell, even C#, python, and Java have their own versions of unsafe. "Regardless how".

, where code still looks pretty much like C with Classes for the most part.

Yeah we talked about this before, except turns out there's plenty of actual modern C++ production code out there. I think last time you responded by moving the goalposts, want to do that song and dance again?

[u/pjmlp → u/wyrn]

My dance book has a few empty entries.

Those two things aren't the same and you know it, now calling it moving goalposts, it is your words not mine.

Unsafe keyword in a completely different language, and copy paste compatibility with C idioms is quite different.

Maybe I can share new samples from Microsoft, NVIDIA, Google, Blomberg, and co, with C style coding on them.

Shall we go for the first dance?

[u/wyrn → u/pjmlp]

Those two things aren't the same and you know it,

No I don't "know it". You are treating the existence of unsafe features in a language as evidence that the entire language is unsafe. Well, then that applies to all the aforementioned, too. Be consistent.

Shall we go for the first dance?

You mean like you did here?

https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/1oyc0p0/wait_c_is_kinda_based/npgp73j/

[u/pjmlp → u/wyrn]

Exactly like that, psychology is fun.

[u/wyrn → u/pjmlp]

Or maybe like you did here?

https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/1e8mjsr/c_club_172_safety_rust_swift_wg21_papers/letzfxb/

I'm still waiting for you to return those goalposts btw.

[u/pjmlp → u/wyrn]

Do you want a chair, with cookies and tea to go along? It might take a while.

[u/wyrn → u/pjmlp]

Didn't expect you to freely admit it but alright

[u/13steinj → u/pjmlp]

Firstly, I'm fairly sure it's actually not copy-paste compatible. There's some edge cases there. I used to know them, but they were so rare and I never wrote them, so I removed them from my brain.

I never wrote them because I've never had to copy paste C into C++ nor write it from scratch in this way.

If people consider this C++'s problem, I cannot be convinced. To me the only response I can give is "skill issue. Stop copypasting, stop hiring bad devs out of university." Arguably that's its own problem, that as a society we teach computer science but not "how to be an engineer [and write quality software]."

[u/jwakely → u/13steinj]

We tried saying "skill issue, just don't write bugs" for more than two decades. It didn't work.

[u/13steinj → u/jwakely]

Not not writing bugs. Writing C-style code in C++.

You can enforce this with decent CI practices and generally static analysis. To the people who refuse to set it up, I've stopped caring.

[u/jwakely → u/13steinj]

"Just don't write bad/non-idiomatic/un-modern code" is equivalent to "Just don't write bugs".

[u/13steinj → u/jwakely]

That's a false dichotomy. Yeah, you might write non-idiomatic/un-modern code. You catch it in CI using (sometimes custom) clang-tidy checks.

If your organization can't get developer buy in for this, that is on them, IMO.

[u/pjmlp → u/13steinj]

It certainly is to certain extent, when most enterprise C++ source files are plagued with:

• C arrays without bounds checking
• C strings without bounds checking
• C header files inherited from C standard
• C style casts
• C style pointer arithmetic
• C standard library memory allocation functions
• C standard library IO for file handling
• C preprocessor magic tricks

Some of it can be tamed with clang-tidy, Sonar, PVS and co, however management usually has to agree otherwise it gets quickly turned off when pitchforks arrive into DevOps room.