[foofie]

> Basically they've overspecified their datastructures and we're now paying the price

I strongly disagree, and I'm perplexed how anyone can describe fundamental traits such as object lifetimes of fundamental infrastructure such as standard data structures of being over specified.

Just imagine the shit show it would be if upgrading your compiler broke your code because std::set started leading your code to throw exceptions because they sneaked a major breaking change such as moving objects that should not be moved.

It's also perplexing how breaking backward compatibility is depicted as a perfectly acceptable thing to do to a major programming language while completely ignoring the ability to release code as a third-party library. If the new implementation of a std::set alternative is any good, people would be lining up around the block to adopt it. I mean,it's already a standard practice in game development to use custom data structure implementations with custom allocators. Why is this not an option, but breaking half of the world's code suddenly is?

[3836293648]

Because if you need something to remain in the same place you box it yourself. Ruining the performance for everyone else because you don't want to handle some boxing on your own is hardly reasonable. This goes fully against the C++ mantra of if you don't use it, you don't pay for it. It's why you have sort and stable_sort rather than unstable_sort and sort.

Just because Hyrum's Law applies to an implementation of the standard doesn't mean that you should pessimise your implementation. You should actively hurt those who rely on implementation quirks