The stream of modern C++ features have been a god-send for anyone that cares about high-performance, high-reliability software. Maybe that doesn’t apply to your use case but C++ is widely used in critical data infrastructure. For anyone that does care about things like performance and reliability, the changes to modern C++ have largely been obvious and immediately useful improvements. Almost all C++ projects I know in the high-performance data infrastructure space live as close to the bleeding edge of new C++ features as the compiler implementations make feasible.
And no, reflection hasn’t “been solved for years” unless you have a very misleading definition of “solved”. A lot of the C++ code I work with is heavily codegen-ed via metaprogramming. Despite the relative expressiveness and flexibility of C++ metaprogramming, proper reflection will dramatically improve what is practical in a strict and type-safe way at compile-time.
You are sounding like rose tinted glasses are on. I think your glass is half full if you recheck actual versions and features. And mine is half empty in gamedev.
Anecdata: A year or so ago I have been in discussion if beta features of C++20 on platforms are good to be used on large scale. It makes it not a sum but an intersection of partial implementations. Anyway it looked positive until we needed a pilot project to try. One of the projects came back with 'just flipping C++20 switch with no changes causes significant regression on build times'. After confirming it that it is indeed not an error on our side it was kinda obvious. Proportional increase of remote compilation cloud costs for few minor features is a 'no'. After a year the beta support is no longer beta but still partial on platforms and no improvements on build times in community. YMMV of course because gamedev mostly supports closed source platforms with closed set of build tools.
> One of the projects came back with 'just flipping C++20 switch with no changes causes significant regression on build times'.
I think this just proves that your team is highly inexperienced in C++ projects, which you implicitly attest by admitting this was your first C++ upgrade you had to go through.
Let me be very clear: there is never an upgrade of the C++ version targeted by a project that does not require full regression tests and a few bugs to squash. Why? Because even if the C++ side of things is perfectly fine, libraries often introduce all sorts of unexpected issues.
For example, once I had to migrate a legacy project to C++14 and flipping the compiler flag to c++14 caused a wall of compiler errors. It turned out the C++ was perfectly fine, but a single library behaved very poorly with a constexpr constructor they enabled conditionally with C++14.
You should understand that upgrades to the core language and standard libraries are exceptionally stable, and a clear focus of the standardization committee. But they only have a say in how the core language and standard libs should be. The bulk of the code any relatively complex project consumes is not core lang+ stdlib, but third-party libraries and frameworks. These often are riddled with flags to toggle whole components only in specific versions of the C++ language, mainly for backwards compatibility. Once you target a new version of C++, often that means you replace whole components of upstream dependencies. This often requires fixing your code. This happens very frequently, even with the likes of Boost.
So, what you're complaining about is not C++ but your inexperience in software engineering in general. I mean, what is the rule of thumb about major version upgrades?
I am sorry for the confusion. It's fine to have some downvotes if its not what ppl like to see. I was not complaining. Message was purely informational from single point of view that a) game platforms have only partial C++20 support in 2025. b) there are features that are in C++ standard that do not fit description 'god-send'.
> One of the projects came back with 'just flipping C++20 switch with no changes causes significant regression on build times
Given that C++20 introduced modules, which are intended to make builds faster, I think just flipping C++20 switch with no changes and checking build times should not be the end of checking whether C++20 is worth it for your setup.
> Given that C++20 introduced modules, which are intended to make builds faster
Turning on modules effectively requires that all of your project dependencies themselves have turned on modules. Fail to do so, and a lot of the benefits start to become hindrances (Clang is currently debating going to 64-bit source locations because modularizing in this manner tends to exhaust the current 32-bit source locations).
Tbh I dont have exact numbers from 2024 at hand. I remember that decision was unanimous. A build times increase is a very sensitive topic for us in gamedev.
I still have to learn C++20 concepts and now we have a full-fledged reflection system?
Good, but I think what happens is there are people on the bleeding edge of C++, usually writing libraries that ship with new code. Each new feature is a godsend for them -- it's the reason why the features are proposed in the first place. It allows you to write libraries more simply, more generally, more safely, and more efficiently.
The rest of us are dealing with old code that is a hodgepodge of older standards and toolchains, that has to run in multiple environments, mostly old ones. It's like yeah, this C++26 feature will come in handy for me someday, but if that day comes then it will be in 2036, and I might not be writing C++ by then.
>The rest of us are dealing with old code that is a hodgepodge of older standards and toolchains, that has to run in multiple environments, mostly old ones. It's like yeah, this C++26 feature will come in handy for me someday, but if that day comes then it will be in 2036, and I might not be writing C++ by then.
Things seem to be catching up. I had the same view up until recently, but now I'm able to use most of the C++23 features in an embedded platform (granted, some are still missing (limited to GCC 11.2).
Speaking seriously, I agree there's definitely a lot of bloat in the new C++ standards. E.g. I'm not a fan of the C++26 linalg stuff. But most performance-focused trading firms still use the latest standard with the latest compiler. Just a small example of new C++ features that are used every day in those firms:
Smart pointers (C++11), Constexpr and consteval (all improvements since C++11), Concepts (C++20), Spans (C++20), Optional (C++17), String views (C++17)
I don't agree at all. For most, linear algebra is the primary reason they pick up C++. Up until now, the best option C++ newbies had was to go through arcane processes to onboard a high performance BLAS implementation which then requires even more arcane steps such as tuning.
With C++26, anyone can simply jump into implementing algorithms.
If anything, BLAS support was conspicuously missing from C++ (and also C).
This blend of comments is more perplexing given that a frequent criticism of C++ is its spartan standard lib, and how the selling point of some commercial software projects such as Matlab is that, unlike C++, linear algebra work is trivial.
Except the devil is in the details as usual, the way linalg is specified doesn't guarantee numeric stability across library implementations or compilers.
Just like the std::random mess, most people are in for a surprise when they attempt to write portable numeric code with it.
> Except the devil is in the details as usual, the way linalg is specified doesn't guarantee numeric stability across library implementations or compilers.
I think this criticism is silly. You're complaining about the C++ standard not enforcing something that is virtually impossible and no implementation under the sun even suggests it would conceivably support. And we should just assume C++ would be able to force it across implementations, target platforms, and even architectures? Ridiculous.
> Just like the std::random mess (...)
The comments I've seen regarding std::random mainly refer to gotchas, such as std::rand returning values in [0, RAND_MAX] and the latter being a platform-specific constant.
There is a reason after all why you only throw vague complains of "mess" instead of pointing out specific concerns or grievances. You need to complain, regardless of merit.
Overall, this blend of criticism is no different than the cliche criticism targeting the STL. Sure, some niche applications can and do have better ways to scratch their niche itches. In the meantime the STL perfectly serves the need of 99.9% of all common usages. Is this not the point? Doesn't linalg and rand achieve this?
Of course vapid nitpickers can still pull out the last resort card of complaining that the implementation is too complicated, a grievance also directed at the STL. But that's just the extent where this silliness goes.
> I don't agree at all. For most, linear algebra is the primary reason they pick up C++.
Out of hundreds of hundreds of projects I've interacted with, maybe less than 1% have used linear algebra in any non-basic capacity (e.g. more than multiplying two 4x4 matrices) and had to use Eigen or BLAS
> Out of hundreds of hundreds of projects I've interacted with, maybe less than 1% have used linear algebra in any non-basic capacity (e.g. more than multiplying two 4x4 matrices)
Are you really trying to argue that if you ignore the bulk of applications that have linear algebra then only a few have linear algebra?
> and had to use Eigen or BLAS
What if I told you that if C++ provided basic support for linalg, your average C++ developer wouldn't ever have to hear about Eigen or blas?
It's perfectly fine if you want to use the likes of Eigen. It's also perfectly fine if any developer opts to ditch the STL and use any performance-oriented container.
But is it ok to force everyone to onboard a third party library just to be able to do very basic things like use a stack or do a dense matrix-vector multiplication? I don't think that leads to a good developer experience.
> The frequency doesn't make the criticism more valid (...)
The criticism is not valid. It's specious reasoning at best, fueled by a hefty dose of gatekeeing.
The only rationale that is relevant is whether the standard library provides a way to do a very basic and fundamental task instead of having to force anyone to onboard and manage third party dependencies. That's the whole point of a standard library, isn't it?
No the point of a standard library is to provide vocabulary types (so that third-party libraries can interoperate) as well as basic operations that are essentially set in stone. Anything beyond that needs to have its usefulness weighted against its maintenance burden, which for a standard library that is serious about backwards compatibility is enormous. C++ is already also heavily criticized for being complex with many problems having multiple outdated solutions that you're not supposed to use.
"Onboarding" a third party library isn't this herculean task that you make it out to be but is in fact a very basic part of software development that almost any project will have to deal with anyway unless you are into reinventing the wheel - even excessively bloated standard libraries don't manage to cover everything.
And no, reflection hasn’t “been solved for years” unless you have a very misleading definition of “solved”. A lot of the C++ code I work with is heavily codegen-ed via metaprogramming. Despite the relative expressiveness and flexibility of C++ metaprogramming, proper reflection will dramatically improve what is practical in a strict and type-safe way at compile-time.