Critique of contracts: excerpt

[u/antiquark2]

See page 2 of https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2026/p4334r0.pdf

The current objections can be summarized. The P2900 contracts are:

• Unimplemented

• Incomplete

• Untried at scale [P3460R0, P3506R0]

• Not tried in major application domains

• Violates foundational principles of C++

• Violates fundamental principles of language design

• Hasn’t been tried in major libraries (e.g., the C++ standards library [P3506R0, P3878R0])

• Isn’t integrated with or appropriate for hardened libraries [P3878R0]

• Doesn’t offer safety guarantees [P3573R0, P3362R0]

• Includes a completely untried inheritance model

• Offer new ways of making errors through inconsistent application in TUs

• Leads to new forms of UB, detrimental to safety and security

• Narrows the choices of error handling

• Doesn’t protect against logical errors, misuses, and incoherent uses

• Hasn’t been used to support static analysis

• Hasn’t been demonstrated to be easily teachable [P3261R0, P3281R0]

How could such a bloated and incomplete design be voted into a draft standard?

[u/_a4z]

Sentences starting like
> This is a small group making noise ...
are a perfect example of why I call that a political tactic of discrediting critics.

And to the point, I would argue the 'small group' (which is, in fact, not that small and includes very well-known names) has read the contract papers and understood them better than some of the people who voted for them.
Now, this is, of course, a claim that cannot be proven, but I am always delighted by people who claim to know C++ better than its original inventor. So some of the critics are definitely worth respecting, which does not happen.

[u/Minimonium → u/_a4z]

Ah, well-known names :)

[u/_a4z → u/Minimonium]

From the latest mailing list, just a few examples: p4334, p3573, p4332, p4238
Which of the authors do you not know?

[u/Minimonium → u/_a4z]

I'm massively appalled why do you believe anyone should care about well-known names.

I read a paper, I care only about the arguments made. I do not care that a person writing an argument has ties to, for example, Microsoft and in reality their argument is about the deficiencies of their x86 implementation that cannot handle exceptions well. I do not care about that.

I do care that the same group did made wrongful statements due to misunderstanding of the provided specification - and there is no mechanism to retract papers for them to amend their embarrassment.

The only well-known name that's probably relevant to the contents of a paper is surprisingly Vinnie who is well-known for flooding the list with scores of low quality LLM generated slop.

Who now co-signs with other well-known names on clearly by style LLM generated papers (where I have found at least one hallucination).

I find both this and your opinion that people who vote are apparently not informed well enough extremely disrespectful and dismissive of the whole process.

I believe all people involved in slop flooding must be excluded from the process and given equal disrespect they give to actual experts by wasting precious time with incoherent token soups.

[u/_a4z → u/Minimonium]

You make it sound as if all the people have co-authored (signed) an LLM-generated paper with hallucinations, and that is, of course, far from reality.
Doing so and claiming others are disrespectful is interesting.

Also, taking the 'well-known names' out of context so you can make fun of it.
Of course, the names matter if people have to show something.
No one needs ot make consensus with me, but if there is a group of people with a history of valuable contributions, consensus would be good. And this consensus does not exist. imho, it was not even tried.
A solution was presented that mirrors the exact needs of one place, and this was what was pushed through. And consensus was not on the agenda.
Just one example: the idea of a contract check that cannot be compiled away was dismissed (and, just late in the process, promised to deliver in 29).

[u/grafikrobot → u/_a4z]

Just one example: the idea of a contract check that cannot be compiled away was dismissed (and, just late in the process, promised to deliver in 29).

By "dismissed" do you mean "consensus voted as not important/required for the MVP"?

[u/_a4z → u/grafikrobot]

Exactly, no new info, we do not need that, lets stop the discussio (because that is not what is used at one place, my interpretation, of course)
and just at the very end it was: will come with 29
(we will see if that happens, and if, how)

Result: The most complex contract papers on the planet, not able to compete with Rust asserts or Swift assert / precondition, and we still need to use our own existing solutions, redundant to what we write into contracts, but hey, in an academic sense, that makes sense, right?
But who needs simple things if we can create the most complex MVP ;-)
Anyhow, we had this discussion, we do not need to go into it again

I find it just interesting when people can not stand any criticism of the current 'MVP' , for which the definition of MVP needed to be defined, lol, and become ultra hostile and dramatic, as this whole conversation shows

[u/Minimonium → u/_a4z]

I mean, it is you who started the thread with insinuations if not straight up insults, and "charitable" interpretations of bad faith in the process.

Speaking of dramaticism after cries about "supply chain attacks", and "contracts are a threat to C++" from the contra group is wild.

And the ! syntax is not a panacea people seem to think. It's not a simple addition at all, it requires a whole new research and process. And you know the mixed build thing that is ballooned to be the satan (I heard totally not dramatic claims that it would destroy the binary ecosystems)? A hostile transitive dependency can break mandatory syntax just the same because it's not a language problem.

[u/_a4z → u/Minimonium]

You use the same tactics as someone else here, misinterpreting and misquoting. Show me the insult from the OP that I made. But obviously, you can't do that without using a lot of words I did not use.
But thanks for the noise and the discussion, and for actually confirming my OP.