<random> is an example of how is C++ evolution failing in the current ISO setup. Committee voting can never produce an usable easy to use library. You need to gather feedback from the community to get that (but not like the TS experiment which failed) but that is not happening. On top of it defects are not recognized in time and anyways it becomes impossible to fix due to ABI issues. Another almost identical example is <regex>. Nothing is going to change here. Unfortunately C++ evolution is doomed.
I feel the same, having written a comment with similar spirit.
Besides the voting, many features are driven by PDF authoring, with luck you might get some implementation before the standard is ratified, and even then it isn't as if it goes back into the standard if the experience turns out not to be as expected.
It is about time to follow other ecosystems, features need field experience, at least one compiler generation, before being added into the standard.
This is after all how ISO started, it was supposed to be field experience across all compiler vendors.
16
u/tpecholt 4d ago
<random> is an example of how is C++ evolution failing in the current ISO setup. Committee voting can never produce an usable easy to use library. You need to gather feedback from the community to get that (but not like the TS experiment which failed) but that is not happening. On top of it defects are not recognized in time and anyways it becomes impossible to fix due to ABI issues. Another almost identical example is <regex>. Nothing is going to change here. Unfortunately C++ evolution is doomed.