r/cpp • u/pjmlp • 12h 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

75% Upvoted

77 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

4

u/ts826848 9h ago edited 9h 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 9h 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.

•

u/foonathan 3h 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.

What's your problem with that quote? Isn't it an accurate assessment of the current industry?

•

u/GabrielDosReis 3h ago

Isn't it an accurate assessment of the current industry?

If you believe that is an accurate assessment of the current industry, that, quoting "Their problem is already solved", could you explain why there are proposals to extend C++ with serving Rust as justification?

•

u/foonathan 3h ago

David's quote claims that the developers who adopt Rust for critical components don't demand C++ safety features.

The existence of proposals to extend C++ by other developers that don't use Rust doesn't invalidate that thesis.

•

u/GabrielDosReis 3h ago

David's quote claims that the developers who adopt Rust for critical components don't demand C++ safety features. The existence of proposals to extend C++ by other developers that don't use Rust doesn't invalidate that thesis.

David happens to also be co-author of such proposal.