There are plenty of successor language ideas. A successor language may very
well may be the path forward, but this isn’t an appropriate mailing list
for such a topic.

Jeremy

On Sat, Nov 22, 2025 at 12:56 organicoman via Std-Proposals <
std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Anything i touch for proposal imposes an ABI break.
> I'm think about starting a brand new C++ from scratch, as a true successor
> of the actual C++.
> How bad is that?
>
>
>
> Sent from my Galaxy
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Andre Kostur <andre_at_[hidden]>
> Date: 11/22/25 6:42 PM (GMT+01:00)
> To: std-proposals_at_[hidden]
> Cc: organicoman <organicoman_at_[hidden]>
> Subject: Re: [std-proposals] The most fair rant on C++
>
> This isn't the right place to have that discussion. What is _your_
> proposal to fix one or more things that you perceive as an issue?
>
> On Sat, Nov 22, 2025 at 9:32 AM organicoman via Std-Proposals
> <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > 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 not
> > contain good-faith criticisms. Cherry picking is a tactic that is
> > meant to hide the actual validity of the criticism. Doing it means
> > that you're deliberately showing the problem in the worst possible
> > light while wallpapering over counter-evidence.
> >
> > This is not something you do if you're trying to have a serious
> > conversation about serious problems. It's manipulative by its very
> > nature. If it raises legitimate points, it's only by accident.
> >
> > Also, it's AI generated. So not only were the contents prima facie
> > manipulative, the bad-faith actor couldn't even be bothered to write
> > the 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 as
> > useful as saying "C++ SUX JK LOL!"
> > --
> > Std-Proposals mailing list
> > Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> > https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
> > --
> > Std-Proposals mailing list
> > Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> > https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>