ISO C++ Standards Committee Panel Discussion
summary
Panelists state concrete outcomes and pain points: MDSpan in C++23 ships, whole‑standard import hits 0.3 seconds to import the standard library on GCC (MS has similar metrics), reflection aims for reflection targeted for C++26 but remains uncertain, and hazard pointers plus RCU move from TS toward the standard. Tooling realities surface: Templight and CPPInsights for compile‑time debugging, modules and executors cut compile times, minutes and GitHub track papers, and committee work runs on volunteers meeting, voting, and iterating proposals.
AI-written summary · about
chapters (14)
- 0:00Introduction and panel
- 1:08Committee member intros
- 3:04C++23 and C++26 features
- 9:48Following committee work
- 16:45Reflection in C++26
- 22:43How to attend meetings
- 26:24The proposal process
- 34:40Dictating optimizations
- 40:34Elegance in the standard
- 48:24Tooling and debuggability
- 56:26Debugging compile time
- 1:09:57Heterogeneous computing
- 1:19:20Volunteering on the committee
- 1:25:54Managing compile times
