Balloting has completed for C++26.
Unfortunately it was Disapproved
P-Members voting: 12 in favor out of 20 = 60 % (requirement >= 66.66%)
(P-Members having abstained are not counted in this vote.)
Member bodies voting: 9 negative votes out of 22 = 41 % (requirement <= 25%)
Sort of a sad day for the C++ community. Hopefully we can heal and move on from this in a productive manner. | 81 comments on LinkedIn
The P2900 contracts and extensions aim to change the nature of C++ and are an existential
threat to C++, adding complexity and bloat (~56 pages in the draft standard for an incomplete
version), potential overheads, and novel opportunities for errors without addressing the current
community and regulatory body demands for guarantees (e.g., https://docbox.etsi.org/CYBER/CYBER/Open/ETSI_TS_104_198_DRAFT.zip presents C++ as providing no memory safety guarantees).
(emphasis mine)
Honestly I think this is by far the largest mistake that has led to the current C++ situation: listening to things like the corporate Rust party line and the Rust community (who also have the unveiled interest of replacing GPL-like code and licenses with corporate-friendly ones that allows wealth to steal projects from skill, see eg.: Ubuntu), instead of examining what’s on the field, what’s on the mind, and accepting that the way C++ functions is intrinsically different than a language that only provides you the tools to let you do what the makers want to let you do. Because the truth is, C++ does provide memory safety guarantees, it just puts them at a lower level of mandate than the mandate that you can make the code do (mostly) what you want rather than only what the Party line allows.
Not to mention, in this day and age anyone who surrenders to Trumpism and its associated modern Mc-Carthyism-like demands is ethically too compromised to be trustable in a field.
(emphasis mine)
Honestly I think this is by far the largest mistake that has led to the current C++ situation: listening to things like the corporate Rust party line and the Rust community (who also have the unveiled interest of replacing GPL-like code and licenses with corporate-friendly ones that allows wealth to steal projects from skill, see eg.: Ubuntu), instead of examining what’s on the field, what’s on the mind, and accepting that the way C++ functions is intrinsically different than a language that only provides you the tools to let you do what the makers want to let you do. Because the truth is, C++ does provide memory safety guarantees, it just puts them at a lower level of mandate than the mandate that you can make the code do (mostly) what you want rather than only what the Party line allows.
Not to mention, in this day and age anyone who surrenders to Trumpism and its associated modern Mc-Carthyism-like demands is ethically too compromised to be trustable in a field.
I didn’t catch this part, how is that related to the topic? Edit: or how it relates to the rest of your post