|
|
|
|
|
by JdeBP
2724 days ago
|
|
I was in an IST 5/-/21 committee meeting last month, and sat next to committee members who were talking about the same things as you are. None of them came from academia. The truth is that C++ standardization is not full of "academics", and people involved voice these same concerns. One of my fellow committee members, Guy Davidson, is in the games industry, and the subject of the 2D graphics proposal has been a regular topic at our meetings. * http://cppcast.com/2018/07/guy-davidson/ * http://jdebp.uk./FGA/cxxpanel.html * http://cxxpanel.org.uk/ |
|
Anyway, originally in my OP, I read the blog post and at the end, he was saying to people that have any industry-specific concern with the way they use C++, and the way C++ is changing, to get involved. I was just saying, as a C++ end-user, even one who cares enough to write this, there is no readily accessible way to do that, because I don't work with anyone who's already on the committee nor at Microsoft. So it feels a bit like an empty rebuttal on his side. Writing this here, it's basically the longest discussion I've ever had my whole career with people who really know deep things about C++ and the process it's made by. I'm glad for it but I'm clearly not the demographic the original blogger was addressing! Even though I definitely feel those same issues he outlines.