On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 at 14:56, Timur Doumler via Std-Proposals
<std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 29 Mar 2023, at 14:53, Jonathan Wakely <cxx_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> Please stop framing opposition to ABI breaks to sound like a plot by evil vendors.
>>
>>
>> Wait, what? Where in my email above did I do any of that?
>
>
> "Deemed unacceptable for the major compiler vendors" certainly sounds like it's just a decision that the vendors make
>
>
> Hm, OK, so I have to admit, this is how I thought it works, yes.

Not exactly. Standard library vendors make such decisions because
that's what their users predominantly want;
they want ABI compatibility more or less at the expense of other
trade-offs (like small tweaks to maximal performance, and others).
This is why the various big internet companies were so frustrated
about not getting their wishes about breaking
ABI early and often, and why the other side was so frustrated about
them not getting it. Recompiling the world
is a significant burden, both for users of closed-source libraries and
also users of open-source libraries, and also
for OS vendors, and that burden increases the higher you go in the
library pile/stack/chain. Btw, this is also why there are proposals
that lead to requiring less recompiling when switching between
contract violation handling modes. It's all about
the same user wishes, and avoiding close-to-intolerable burdens at
close-to-intolerable frequencies.