C++17 standard a major… disappointment

C++17 was supposed to be a major update of the C++ ISO standard. After the Jacksonville meeting (29.02 – 05.03) it looks like it’s rather going to be a major disappointment. I’m not trying to downplay the things that have been voted into the C++17 standard so far, but all major features we hoped for this new version were moved out: modules, concepts, ranges, coroutines, uniform function call syntax.

Here is a brief report of the meetings, Trip report: C++ meeting at Jacksonville, and a quote of what was moved out for the next version:

Let me start enumerating the things we are not going to have in C++17:

  • Modules: They will not be in C++17, but in a separate technical specification. That is really a pity, as we will be for more years without having what I was expecting to let me get rid of the text substitution paradigm of the include directive as well as improve compilation times.
  • Concepts: They will not be integrated in C++17, but stay for now in their own technical specification. There were concerns about some issues in the TS, which I do not consider essential. Despite that there is implementation experience and even other TS depends on it, it was rejected to move concepts to the IS.
  • Ranges: This is a library solution highly depending on concepts. So, no way.
  • Coroutines: There was a very sound proposal with implementation experience. However, again this was targeted to another technical specification.

Besides that, we also will not have the half of uniform function call syntax that I thought was not controversial. To be clear, I really wanted both halves.

You can discuss on the report on reddit. The general feeling is disappointment though.

On a side note, standard C++ library in Visual Studio 2015 update 2 is C++17 feature complete (on what has been voted so far prior to the Jacksonville meeting).

, , , , , , Hits for this post: 11112 .
Trackback

only 1 comment untill now

  1. Gravatar

    Here it is an explication why concepts are not present within this standard. http://honermann.net/blog/?p=3

Add your comment now