[reactordev]

This. This is why C++ is stuck. The effort required to rewrite old shit code (that works, does its job, makes money) is just too valuable to the company so it sits. All vendors must conform or else be shown the door. No innovation can take place so long as Clu has its claws in our company.

I empathize. This is where rust could really help but there’s a lot of hate around “new” so it sits. The C++2042 standard will still have to be able to solve for C++98. The language will die. A pointer is a pointer and it shouldn’t need weak_ptr, shared_ptr, unique_ptr etc. If you expose it, it’s shared. If you don’t, then it could be unique but let the compiler decide. The issue with all these additions is they are opt in for a community that would rather opt out since it means learning/rewriting/refactoring.

I’ve come across this so many times in my career. Thank goodness for AI and LLMs that can quickly decompose these hairball code bases (just don’t ask it to add to it).

I love C/C++ but it’s so old at this point that no sane person should ever start with that.

[StilesCrisis]

If you think the problem with C++ is that shared_ptr exists, you should probably just use C.

[reactordev]

If that is what you take from it, you missed the point entirely.

I could care less about shared_ptr.

The issue is why should I care? Why is it on the dev to determine how a pointer should work? Why the dev has to go back and refactor old code to be new again? Why can’t the committee build non-breaking changes to the spec? I would rather have compile flags that make a pointer an “old pointer style” vs having to mentally juggle which ptr container to use, when, and why.

This is just one example. Gang of 3, becomes gang of 5, becomes mob of state… It’s just a giant mess.

[bluGill]

that youieven think a compile flag could switch everything shows how little you understand the problem. it is fine not to understand - it isn't possible to understand everything - but stop talking as if there is an easy problem that would work.