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
    17
    ·
    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
      3
      ·
      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++.

      • rimjob_rainer@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        You have to see it as “root”-mode, it gives you the means to do stuff you need to do but cannot do otherwise. Most times it’s for workarounds for problems you can’t solve. If you use reflection you are fully responsible.

        Of course you normally shouldn’t use it, in 10 years I used it maybe one or two times. It’s more of a last resort.

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

          My bad, that’s on me, it looks like the C++ libraries I found use either templates or boost’s reflection. There might be a way to do it with macros/metaprogramming but I’m not good enough at C/C++ to know.

          I’m learning rust and C at the same time and was mixing up rust’s features with C’s. Rust’s answer to reflection is largely compile-time macros/attributes and I mistakenly assumed C’s attributes worked similarly since they have the same name.

          • BatmanAoD@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            Ah. Rust’s macros and the C preprocessor’s exist in vastly different universes. The C preprocessor is literally just a fancy programmatic copy-and-paste tool. Rust macros read the input source code and then execute other source code (the macro definition) to generate new source code that the compiler then reads.

            I love Rust, but Rust macros are arguably more of a footgun than compile-time reflection would be, and as amazing as serde is (and no, there’s nothing comparable in standard-compliant C++ yet), there’s a strong argument that compile-time reflection would be a preferable technique for deriving serialization, argument-parsing, and similar feature.

    • JakenVeina@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      43
      ·
      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.

      • GetOffMyLan@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        You can also optimize this a bit.

        You can use Activator.CreateInstance instead of reflecting and invoking the constructor.

        You can also call MethodInfo.Invoke, you don’t need to create a delegate.

        Also worth noting that Source Generators have replaced the need for reflection in many cases.

        • Zangoose@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          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.

          • BatmanAoD@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            2 months ago

            If you look at the proposal, this is specifically “static reflection”, i.e. compile-time reflection. So it doesn’t actually have any of the downsides you mention, as far as I can tell.

    • ich_iel@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Not a C++ dev, but looking at Java, which has reflection: Reflection allows to inspect and modify runtime attributes of classes, interfaces, fields and methods. Even, when you don’t know their names at compile time.

      Basically take any object and just ask “what are your (even private) fields?” and then happily modify them, or call these methods, or…

  • key@lemmy.keychat.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    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+++?

  • Sonotsugipaa@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    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.

    • Zangoose@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      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.

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

        Wouldn’t compilers be able to optimize runtime things out? I know that GCC does so for some basic RTTI things, when types are known at compile time.

        • BatmanAoD@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          2 months ago

          For runtime reflection, no, you’d specifically be able to do things that would be impossible to optimize out.

          But the proposal is actually for static (i.e. compile-time) reflection anyway, so the original performance claim is wrong.

      • azi
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        C++26 reflection is compiletime

    • azi
      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
          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…