crater VS cppfront

yup, they reference it as an inspiration: https://github.com/rust-lang/crater

it's probably impossible to automate an entire ecosystem, and there is value to enabling a tighter integration within a project ecosystem (a subset of the language ecosystem).

Rather than hypothesising about an imagined tool you could look at the actual tool which of course is in Rust's source code repo: https://github.com/rust-lang/crater

> new proposed C++ changes - are checked against only easily and "well-known" accessible package.

Now that I have, so to say, shown you mine, lets see yours. Where is the tool to perform these checks in C++?

The "break things" part of "move fast" is not essential, Rust cares so much about breakage they literally compile and run the tests for every crate on crates.io and github using a tool called Crater. They do this just to test changes, even for stuff thats documented to be unstable, because thats just courtesy. And tooling makes it trivial to switch between Rust versions.

The bot's named Crater if you want to look into it more.

See https://github.com/rust-lang/crater

Rust compiler developers use a tool called Crater to test potentially breaking compiler changes on all crates (Rust's name for libraries) uploaded to the official repository. If plugin stability is the issue, maybe a solution along these lines would be better than merging these plugins to Neovim's core?

https://github.com/rust-lang/crater is the bot they use to test proposed compiler/stdlib changes against slices of the crates.io library up to and including "all of it".

The tool you're referring to is called Crater: https://github.com/rust-lang/crater.

I'm pretty certain this isn't actually true. You should look at the editions, etc. Rust also has an insane guarantee which I am certain C/C++ don't offer: It rebuilds its entire library ecosystem each time it ships to make sure nothing breaks (https://crater.rust-lang.org). I've never seen an instance were old code didn't compile on a new compiler. Rust isn't forwards compatible (new code compiles on an old compiler) of course, but what is?

CPP2/cppfront:

https://github.com/hsutter/cppfront

I hope we see this in C++26 as optional mode i.e. #safe and #unsafe and same for #impdef or so.

C++23 is done. But C++ is not! In this talk, the author shares his personal perspectives on an ongoing and very active evolution of C++, updates on his cppfront experimental compiler, and why compatibility is essential to the further success of the C++ development.

https://github.com/hsutter/cppfront

But his side project at Microsoft didn't gain traction with gcc, clang, etc and everybody else in the industry. So at this point, the C++ committee will be perceived as "so far behind" ... because there's nothing for them to vote on.

C++ has major flaws that cannot be rectified without serious breaking changes. With that said, Herb has been experimenting with a new cpp frontend with sane defaults [1].

In my opinion, the world is on standby until Anders Hejlsberg feels like tackling a modern, next generation systems language.

[1] https://github.com/hsutter/cppfront