An under noticed ninja feature I adore, which was implemented relatively recently, is the ability to configure how its build progress is printed. In my fish config, I have the `NINJA_STATUS` envvar:

    set -x NINJA_STATUS "STEP: %f/%t  
    [%p / %P] 
    [%w + %W]
    "

Which prints the time elapsed and projected in a readable multi-line format.

Rust cannot take a const function and evaluate that into the argument of a const generic or a proc macro. As far as I can tell, the reasons are deeply fundamental to the architecture of rustc. It's difficult to express HOW FUNDAMENTAL this is to strongly typed zero overhead abstractions, and we see where Rust is lacking here in cases like `Option` and bitset implementations.

> Rust cannot take a const function and evaluate that into the argument of a const generic

Assuming I'm interpreting what you're saying here correctly, this seems wrong? For example, this compiles [0]:

    const fn foo(n: usize) -> usize {
        n + 1
    }

    fn bar<const N: usize>() -> usize {
        N + 1
    }

    pub fn baz() -> usize {
        bar::<{foo(0)}>()
    }

In any case, I'm a little confused how this is relevant to what I said?

[0]: https://rust.godbolt.org/z/rrE1Wrx36

> Why, for example, is printing the source-code text of an enum value so goddamn hard?

Aside from this being trivial in C++26, imo it isn't actually that tricky. Here's a very quick implementation I made awhile ago: https://github.com/Cons-Cat/libCat/blob/3f54e47f0ed182771fce...

> Aside from this being trivial in C++26

Great, it took them 51 years to make a trivial operation trivial. Call me next millennium when they start to figure out the nontrivial stuff, I guess.

Simply by asserting "we support MSVC", most `exciting` C++ will never be touched in a codebase.

No offense intended to your perspective, but I do find it a little amusing that C++23, which was generally considered a disappointingly small update due to COVID complications, was the breaking point in complexity.

PyCuda 2024, used fairly often in certain industries, still contains `auto_ptr` ;-;

That's become of the most memorable threads on Hacker News to me. I definitely think about it at least once most weeks.

Closure finally!

Well not really though. It still doesn't answer where the symbol came from; just where it was first catalogued.

Presumably its original use was in some yet-unfound paper or manual where they needed a symbol for azimuth.

what will i do... with all this extra time....

> An interesting perspective. Could turn it around as "everything you can do in C++ you can do in C with a lot less language complexity".

C can't parameterize an optimal layout fixed-length bitset with zero overhead, nor can it pragmatically union error sets at scale.

My understanding is that Scala 3 came with many large breaking changes that made adoption difficult. I at least hadn't heard users complain that new features weren't desired.

> I understand that Boost is now deprecated.

Huh?? Boost is used basically everywhere.

Definitely not. Boost is specifically prohibited in many companies. I haven’t run into Boost in a source tree in over a decade.

There are many reasons for this. Boost has uneven quality. Many of the best bits end up in the C++ standard. New versions sometimes introduce breaking changes. Recent versions of C++ added core language features that make many Boost library features trivial and clean to implement yourself. Boost can make builds much less pleasant. Boost comes with a lot of baggage.

Boost was a solution for when template metaprogramming in C++ was an arcane unmaintainable mess. Since then, C++ has intentionally made massive strides toward supporting template metaprogramming as a core feature that is qualitatively cleaner and more maintainable. You don’t really need a library like Boost to abstract those capabilities for the sake of your sanity.

If you are using C++20 or later, there isn’t much of a justification for using Boost these days.

Not at all. Most of the good parts of boost are now part of the standard library, and the rest of boost that is of high quality have stand-alone implementations, like ASIO, pybind11 (which was heavily influenced by Boost.python), etc...

A lot of the new stuff that gets added into boost these days is basically junk that people contribute because they want some kind of resume padding but that very few people actually use. Often times people just dump their library into boost and then never bother to maintain it thereafter.