Originally posted by tildearrow
View Post
We’re not just implementing the C++ Standard, we’re helping to develop it. The MSVC team is a major contributor to the development of the C++ Standard. In addition to our participation in the standards committee meeting, editors from three major Technical Specifications (Coroutines, Modules, and Ranges) work on the MSVC team. We also maintain an open source fork of the Ranges TS that works on our compiler.
Originally posted by tildearrow
View Post
Originally posted by tildearrow
View Post
See problem here to fix this basically will require a C++ standard change and C++ standard change now means lets argue with Microsoft for a change they don't really want.
Originally posted by tildearrow
View Post
Really I do think rust has a better chance of becoming a language that rust can replace C before C++ can. Particularly with C++ you know that in the standard body you will have to argue with Microsoft who openly says they don't agree with the idea.
Rust being from Mozilla means that rust is based around the "Internet Standard" model where anyone with a idea submits a RFC and implements and the best long term implementations live. So you don't have the fatality of idea stuck in committee until forgotten about like C++ standard process does from time to time.
Its not what people trained in C++ really want to hear that C++ due how it standard is managed is basically screwed at least for quite some time and there will be a stack of things it cannot do.
Microsoft vendor lock-in is on a completely different level to what people think some of Microsoft vendor lock-in is how much control they have over particular key standards.
Yes all the idea you have come up with so far to attempt to get around the ABI issue with C++ I have heard before and other parties have responded that they don't work. In fact Linus the lead of the Linux kernel did a write up on C++ 15+ years ago listing all the same faults. So over decade and a half has progressed and C++ problem points are still exactly the same. At the rate things are going I am expecting another 15+ years of C++ being screwed up when needing to be ABI compatible across compilers.
I don't see the long term future being C++ unless the things change. C could be around for another few decades at least in these problem points. Yes intel developer working on improving rust is like you he does not like having todo all the pointer stuff in C because its a path to bugs even that it works.
You do have to remember Mozilla started the rust language because some of the other screw ball things about C++ was causing them major problems as well.
This is really C++ is basically no for system programming if you don't want major trouble. Lot of wine falls into system programming.
Heck if intel developer is able to make rust properly suitable for system programming maybe this will make Microsoft staff in the ISO standard committee of C++ standard take this problem more seriously but this will be like 5 years into the future from now if we are lucky. Of course by then items like wine could already be in rust migration. I seriously think if nothing changes by the time C++ standard get serous about fixing the ABI problem of the language it will be too little too late.
Comment