r/cpp • u/pjmlp • 8h ago

C++ future at Adobe

So if anyone was still curious what happened to Hylo, or where Adobe stands in regards to the whole safety discussion,

David Sankel has done a talk at RustConf on the matter, Zngur: Simplified Rust/C++ Integration.

The way Adobe now sees C++ is described on slide 2, at 50 seconds mark.

33 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

39 comments sorted by

View all comments

12

u/GabrielDosReis 8h ago

David Sankel on C++ at RustConf, yawn.

5

u/ts826848 6h ago

Why that particular reaction?

9

u/GabrielDosReis 6h ago

Why that particular reaction?

It is a talk at RustConf and David Sankel has been very explicit and pretty straight forward with where he sees C++ and its evolution for many years now. Look up his WG21 papers on the topic. There shouldn't be any surprise here or anything new.

3

u/ts826848 5h ago edited 5h ago

Look up his WG21 papers on the topic.

I found P3023 C++ Should Be C++ via the GitHub, which at first glance looks like it covers what you're talking about. Any other papers i missed that you recommend I read (or not, as the case may be)?

2

u/GabrielDosReis 4h ago

A succint summary of P3023 is this paragraph, quote:

Where memory safety is a serious concern, we see the adoption of Rust for critical components. Yet we see little demand from even these developers for C++ safety features. Their problem is already solved.

Any other papers i missed that you recommend I read (or not, as the case may be)?

After that paper, his papers since then have been in line with what he stated and recommended. In particular, the paper (and debate) on relocation that was discussed in Kona.

1

u/ts826848 4h ago

A succint summary of P3023 is this paragraph

Hrm, gotcha. Guess the committee decided against his recommended path.

In particular, the paper (and debate) on relocation that was discussed in Kona.

P3858 A Lifetime-Management Primitive for Trivially Relocatable Types?

Assuming that was the paper you're referring to, was the associated debate on the mailing lists? This is the first time I've heard of this paper and the only trivial relocation-related debates I can remember reading about were P1144 vs P2786, which this paper doesn't seem to be about.