What's not mentioned in the announcement (at least based on a quick skim) is that EDG the company is winding down, which is likely the reason why they're open sourcing the front end.
> John was the most vocal person pointing out technical problems with the feature; the committee decided it did not agree and standardized the feature anyway over his and EDG’s sustained objections; and then instead of sitting back and saying “we told you so,” EDG ended up being the only company in the world who ever implemented the feature! To add a sense of proportion: It took the same team longer to implement just the C++98 export template feature than to implement a compiler front-end for the entire Java language. But John and EDG went and did it, to support the committee’s consensus decision… only to have the committee remove export template again a few years later, because John and EDG had been right about the feature’s problems. That’s a model of solid professional behavior.
Yes, but no reflection on the burn out this causes for the c++ community?
EDG has been consistently the most vocal opposers of anything that goes in the language, and in recent years had stopped keeping up. The `export` thign was an exception.
jabl · · focus · HN ↗
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edison_Design_Group" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edison_Design_Group ref 9: <a href="https://herbsutter.com/2025/11/10/trip-report-november-2025-iso-c-standards-meeting-kona-usa/" rel="nofollow">https://herbsutter.com/2025/11/10/trip-report-november-2025-...
vlovich123 · · focus · HN ↗
Yes, but no reflection on the burn out this causes for the c++ community?
watinthedeutsch · · focus · HN ↗
fg137 · · focus · HN ↗