Not everyone would get hurt. 10 million dollar. but electricity and labor
cost for dealing with broken abi is probably much larger.
I am not even suggesting a full ABI break, in fact you can still break some
part of it. Because i would argue features like std::unique_ptr are harmful
in the first place.

Do you know what do people think of WG21 and people here in general?
Someone just chats with me here:

MacroModel 12:22:31 Generating low-quality code for fmt

MacroModel 12:22:47 Then include fast_io in the header file

MacroModel 12:22:48

MacroModel 12:24:50 Wait for about a decade until fmt becomes obsolete, and
people start criticizing fmt just like they criticize iostream.

MacroModel 12:25:01 Saying that introducing this thing was a mistake for
C++.

MacroModel 12:25:30 I won't be polite about it.

MacroModel 12:25:35 Apply to become a developer.

MacroModel 12:25:50 Teach a lesson to WG21.

MacroModel 12:26:01 Or wait for Herb to improve and create his own compiler.

MacroModel 12:26:10

MacroModel 12:40:26

MacroModel 12:40:35 WG21 is a bunch of losers.

MacroModel 12:40:48 C++ is dying.

MacroModel 12:40:50

MacroModel 12:41:05 I suggest modifying GCC.

MacroModel 12:41:14 Join Herb (Sutter).

MacroModel 12:41:36 What's the point of relying on WG21? They can't even
get into the standard after 21 years.

MacroModel 12:47:00 So, what's the plan?

MacroModel 12:47:14

MacroModel 12:48:27

MacroModel 12:48:33 What's the use of criticism?

MacroModel 12:48:58 Directly propose to GCC instead of waiting for WG21 to
issue a number.

MacroModel 12:49:04 GCC extensions are sufficient.

MacroModel 12:49:32 What's the point of relying on WG21? The C++ standard
is just a piece of useless paper.

MacroModel 12:52:52 WG21 is like the fmt author, no pressure to survive,
just building a social circle for likes, talking nonsense every day.
There's no use expecting anything from those narrow-minded people.

On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 12:53 PM Jason McKesson via Std-Proposals <
std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 12:09 PM coshvji cujmlqef via Std-Proposals
> <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > Let's delve into some fundamental economics, my friend. Small companies
> often struggle to thrive in a competitive landscape. When large companies
> increase their organic composition, it tends to reduce the socially
> necessary labor time, leading to a decrease in the prices of goods.
> Consequently, small companies can lose surplus value to their larger
> counterparts, who benefit from super profits at the expense of smaller
> businesses.
> >
> > It's worth noting that there are exceptions, such as Google, which has
> shown a willingness to break ABI compatibility. Nevertheless, even Google
> has numerous sections of code that must remain unaltered. In contrast, it
> appears that Microsoft is quite cautious about breaking ABIs.
>
> ... how does that address anything Ville said?
>
> Here's what you don't understand: *everybody* is hurt by an ABI break.
> But as with any generalized economic harm, larger, higher-wealth
> entities are better equipped to survive such harm. An ABI break that
> requires Apple to spend $10 million to rewrite parts of its stack
> would be a bad thing for them. They don't want to spend that money if
> they don't have to. But.. they do *have* that money to spend. So the
> circumstance would be bad-but-survivable.
>
> A small company that takes in $3 million annually in revenue that's
> dependent on some binary-only library might only have to spend
> $500,000 to rewrite it in the event of an ABI break. But unlike Apple,
> they don't have that much money lying around. So their company breaks.
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>