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@kostur.net>
Date: 11/22/25 6:42 PM (GMT+01:00)
To: std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org
Cc: organicoman <organicoman@yahoo.fr>
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@lists.isocpp.org> 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@lists.isocpp.org>
> Date: 11/22/25 5:55 PM (GMT+01:00)
> To: std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org
> Cc: Jason McKesson <jmckesson@gmail.com>
> 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@lists.isocpp.org> 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@lists.isocpp.org
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals@lists.isocpp.org
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals