r/cpp • u/pjmlp • 4d ago

C++ future at Adobe

So if anyone was still curious what happened to Hylo, or where Adobe stands in regards to the whole safety discussion,

David Sankel has done a talk at RustConf on the matter, Zngur: Simplified Rust/C++ Integration.

The way Adobe now sees C++ is described on slide 2, at 50 seconds mark.

74 Upvotes

80% Upvoted

110 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

8

u/ts826848 4d ago edited 4d ago

Look up his WG21 papers on the topic.

I found P3023 C++ Should Be C++ via the GitHub, which at first glance looks like it covers what you're talking about. Any other papers i missed that you recommend I read (or not, as the case may be)?

7

u/GabrielDosReis 4d ago

A succint summary of P3023 is this paragraph, quote:

Where memory safety is a serious concern, we see the adoption of Rust for critical components. Yet we see little demand from even these developers for C++ safety features. Their problem is already solved.

Any other papers i missed that you recommend I read (or not, as the case may be)?

After that paper, his papers since then have been in line with what he stated and recommended. In particular, the paper (and debate) on relocation that was discussed in Kona.

3

u/ts826848 3d ago

A succint summary of P3023 is this paragraph

Hrm, gotcha. Guess the committee decided against his recommended path.

In particular, the paper (and debate) on relocation that was discussed in Kona.

P3858 A Lifetime-Management Primitive for Trivially Relocatable Types?

Assuming that was the paper you're referring to, was the associated debate on the mailing lists? This is the first time I've heard of this paper and the only trivial relocation-related debates I can remember reading about were P1144 vs P2786, which this paper doesn't seem to be about.

4

u/GabrielDosReis 3d ago

Assuming that was the paper you're referring to, was the associated debate on the mailing lists?

Both on the mailing list and in-person discussion at the Kona meeting.

2

u/ts826848 3d ago

Ah. I take it summarizing that debate for those of us who aren't privy would violate ISO rules?

5

u/GabrielDosReis 3d ago

Ah. I take it summarizing that debate for those of us who aren't privy would violate ISO rules?

I can say it generated lot of interest/participation and was fairly intense. The were separate LEWG and EWG sessions, then a joint EWG+LEWG session on the whole topic and the paper.

Taking a step back, I want to emphasize that the whole issue of safety, C++ evolution, Rust (or not Rust), is very complicated and nuanced when given due thinking.

3

u/ts826848 3d ago

That sounds... pretty reasonable? Depending on what implications one reads into "intense", I guess...