Source

Alt text:

A screenshot from the linked article titled “Reflection in C++26”, showing reflection as one of the bullet points listed in the “Core Language” section

  • rimjob_rainer@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    Java has reflection since version 1.1. It’s actually quite useful in situations and most popular frameworks use it. It depends on you if it turns into a footgun.

    • Zangoose@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      See my other comment for more detials but it kind of destroys the type safety of the language. In Java for example, it lets you modify private/protected fields and call private/protected methods.

      It’s also slower than accessing a field normally since you need to do a string lookup (but slightly faster than a hashmap/dictionary) so if you use it over a large enough list it’ll cause slowdowns.

      Most use cases for it in Java/C# revolve around testing, serialization, and dynamic filtering/sorting. And most of those cases can be handled more safely using macros/attributes (EDIT: and templates as well, though those are also pretty painful to deal with) because that gets handled at compile-time in C/C++.

    • JakenVeina@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s the capability of a program to “reflect” upon itself, I.E. to inspect and understand its own code.

      As an example, In C# you can write a class…

      public class MyClass
      {
          public void MyMethod()
          {
              ...
          }
      }
      

      …and you can create an instance of it, and use it, like this…

      var myClass = new MyClass();
      myClass.MyMethod();
      

      Simple enough, nothing we haven’t all seen before.

      But you can do the same thing with reflection, as such…

      var type = System.Reflection.Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly()
          .GetType("MyClass");
      
      var constructor = type.GetConstructor(Array.Empty<Type>());
      
      var instance = constructor.Invoke(Array.Empty<Object>());
      
      var method = type.GetMethod("MyMethod");
      
      var delegate = method.CreateDelegate(typeof(Action), instance);
      
      delegate.DynamicInvoke(Array.Empty<object>());
      

      Obnoxious and verbose and tossing basically all type safety out the window, but it does enable some pretty crazy interesting things. Like self-discovery and dynamic loading of plugins, or self-configuration of apps. Also often useful when messing with generics. I could dig up some practical use-cases, if you’re curious.

        • Zangoose@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          It’s pretty cool when you use it right but it’s also really easy to shoot yourself in the foot with, even by C++ standards. For example, in other languages (I’m coming from Java/C# which both have it) it lets you access private/protected fields and methods when you normally wouldn’t be able to.

          There’s also a noticeable performance penalty over large lists because you’re searching for the field with a string instead of directly accessing it.

          For the times it is necessary (usually serialization-adjacent or dynamic filtering/sorting in a table) to use reflection, it’s faster at runtime than converting an object to a dictionary/hashmap. However, 99% of time it’s a bad call.

  • Sonotsugipaa@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    I can see the footguns, but I can also see the huge QoL improvement - no more std::enable_if spam to check if a class type has a member, if you can just check for them.

    … at least I hope it would be less ugly than std::enable_if.

    • azi@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      You already can do that with C++20 concepts and the requires expression

      template <typename T>
      concept has_member_foo = requires(T t) {
          t.foo();
      };
      
      // Will fail to instantiate (with nice error 
      // message) if t.foo() is ill-formed
      template <has_member_foo T>
      void bar(T t) {
          // ...
      }
      
      // abbreviated form of above
      void baz(has_member_foo auto t) {
          // ...
      }
      
      // verbose form of above
      template <typename T> requires
          has_member_foo<T>
      void biz(T t) {
          // ...
      }
      
      // same as above but with anonymous concept
      template <typename T> requires
          requires(T t) { t.foo(); }
      void bom(T t) {
          // ...
      }
      
      // If already inside a function
      if constexpr (has_member_foo<T>) {
          // ...
      }
      
      // Same but with anonymous concept
      if constexpr (requires(T t) { t.foo(); }) {
          // ...
      }
      
      • Sonotsugipaa@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        I imagine reflections would make the process more straightforward, requires expressions are powerful but either somewhat verbose or possibly incomplete.

        For instance, in your example foo could have any of the following declarations in a class:

        • void foo();
        • int foo() const;
        • template <typename T> foo(T = { }) &&;
        • decltype([]() { }) foo;
        • azi@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          I’m not sure if there’s anything enable_if can do that concepts can’t do somewhat better but yeah there’s definitely a lot of subtleties that reflection is going to make nicer or possible in the first place

          • Sonotsugipaa@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            Oh, std::enable_if is straight up worse, they’re unreadable and don’t work when two function overloads (idk about variables) have the same signature.

            I’m not even sure enable_if can do something that constraints can’t at all…

    • Zangoose@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      There’s a pretty big difference though. To my understanding enable_if happens at compile time, while reflection typically happens at runtime. Using the latter would cause a pretty big performance impact over a (large) list of data.

  • key@lemmy.keychat.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    It’s good the core language now has to have a reason before it deletes shit. Speaking of, when do they add full garbage collection and call it c+++?