I'm interested to hear the community opinions, and reactions. It tells a lot about the language future.In the video he mention this example[[no_discard]] constexpr inline auto foo(params...) noexcept -> Ret;If we had to redesign the language, what should be the default and what should be opt-in/opt-out?Sent from my Galaxy
-------- Original message --------From: Jason McKesson via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> Date: 11/22/25 5:55 PM (GMT+01:00) To: std-proposals_at_[hidden] Cc: Jason McKesson <jmckesson_at_[hidden]> Subject: Re: [std-proposals] The most fair rant on C++ On Sat, Nov 22, 2025 at 3:58 AM organicoman via Std-Proposals<std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:>> You are right, he does cherry pick many things, but that because we are experts and we can spot them.> But Is it the same for new comers?You're ignoring the actual issue here. Namely, that the video does notcontain good-faith criticisms. Cherry picking is a tactic that ismeant to hide the actual validity of the criticism. Doing it meansthat you're deliberately showing the problem in the worst possiblelight while wallpapering over counter-evidence.This is not something you do if you're trying to have a seriousconversation about serious problems. It's manipulative by its verynature. If it raises legitimate points, it's only by accident.Also, it's AI generated. So not only were the contents prima faciemanipulative, the bad-faith actor couldn't even be bothered to writethe bad faith criticisms themselves.Put simply, this video should not be used as evidence for anything.Bringing it up here is just a waste of everyone's time. It's about asuseful as saying "C++ SUX JK LOL!"-- Std-Proposals mailing listStd-Proposals_at_[hidden]://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals