Hello ThiagoThis thread is not a proposal, I saw that video on YouTube, and i was overwhelmed by the amount of fair points he complained about.Everytime the author showcased a problem, i found myself arguing the why's and the how's that problem accured.Then i realized that it is not normal!!Should we have a book next to the official standard to explain the choices and legacy baggage?-Wrong defaults -Hidden Implicit conversions-Verbosity -Proliferation of template meta programming -Criptic symbols for reflection....And the list goes on.I sat down to try to find solution, but always i find that breaking ABI is the solution, or add more verbosity.Eg:Implicit conversions.Either you cancel a big chapter of the standard.Or ask from the users to wrap even the fundamental types into a class and make the constructor explicit,Yet, you have to add all the missing operator(+, -, ×, /, ++, ....) without forgetting that you lose the short circuit feature when you add logical operators....etcAs such, I asked the community members, here, for their opinions.Some contributed with their thoughts, others just refuted the honesty of the video...We are humans and that's an expected behavior. But me personally, i concluded that rewriting C++ from scratch to succeed the actual C++, is the most plausible solution.Using C++ 'profiles' is doomed to fail, just review what happened to OpenGL.So again this was not a proposal, and even if it goes that path,then the question becomes from which point we start breaking ABI? And why it was not done earlier in the stage before it became a mess?As I answered Phil and others, i will study how bad it is to rewrite C++ from scratch, and I will throw some trys on it and we will see.I appreciate all your contribution, because it influences future decisions. Thank you all.Sent from my Galaxy
-------- Original message --------From: Thiago Macieira <thiago_at_[hidden]> Date: 11/24/25 2:29 AM (GMT+01:00) To: "C++ STD Proposals (std-proposals_at_[hidden])" <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> Cc: organicoman <organicoman_at_[hidden]> Subject: Re: [std-proposals] The most fair rant on C++ On Sunday, 23 November 2025 03:14:17 Pacific Standard Time organicoman via Std-Proposals wrote:> That's trueAll proposal have 5 implicit stages for acceptance.1- backward> compatibility 2- ABI stability3- effeciency (abstraction cost)4- future> extensibility.5- time to adoption.And most of the proposal dies at stage> 2.Sent from my GalaxyWhether that's true or not, maybe you should be asking yourself *why* that may be. A proposal to officially ditch ABI guarantees needs to evaluate the cost associated with keeping it vs the cost of ditching it.You have not proposed anything. I'm also pretty sure you have not thought of the cost of ditching ABI stability.-- Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org Principal Engineer - Intel Data Center - Platform & Sys. Eng.