The spaceship operator is an attempt to achieve the same thing as Rust&#x27;s PartialOrd -- to have a single authoritative place to explain the ordering of a type.Historically C++ only had these separate comparison operators, and operator overloading, and so if you want ordering you&#x27;d be expected to override all of the operators and do so in a consistent way. Turns out it&#x27;s easy enough to get that wrong and if you do now your C++ program is often nonsense, it has no defined meaning whatsoever. For example if a &lt; b &amp;&amp; b &lt; a then too bad now many built-in library functions might do absolutely anything in say C++ 17.With the spaceship operator you&#x27;re still screwed if your type provides an incoherent ordering (unlike Rust where that just means the type is less useful) but it&#x27;s much more likely you&#x27;ll write something which actually works.

What is the appeal &#x2F; high utility use-case for the spaceship &quot;&lt;=&gt;&quot; operator? It seems quite intuitive to me.. too many doodads is a turn off, like a car with excessive modifications. Does continually adding more then more more more eventually become a stressful nightmare of complexity?For a concrete example of what this looks like, check out the Homer Simpson -designed car.<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;media.wired.com&#x2F;photos&#x2F;593252a1edfced5820d0fa07&#x2F;master&#x2F;w_2560%2Cc_limit&#x2F;the-homer-inline4.jpg" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;media.wired.com&#x2F;photos&#x2F;593252a1edfced5820d0fa07&#x2F;mast...</a>p.s. Fascinating bug! One of the most interesting cases I&#x27;ve encountered.

As opposed to being subject to interpretation of the truth, with the courts of varying quality. My point is... everything has error bars.

This is about a language compiler bug. There are no takeaways about smart contracts here.

You can fix smart contracts without a hard fork. In fact it&#x27;s common practice for them to be upgradable.

I get as exasperated at C++ as anyone else, but IMO there&#x27;s another takeaway here, which is that smart contracts are an absolutely terrible idea. Relying on code as the source of truth for a transaction just completely disregards the reality that code is always going to be buggy. For those who might not be aware, this is the same smart contract framework where someone accidentally killed $300 million of transactions because a function in a library for setting the wallet associated with a private key was defined as public instead of private: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;medium.com&#x2F;cybermiles&#x2F;i-accidentally-killed-it-and-evaporated-300-million-6b975dc1f76b" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;medium.com&#x2F;cybermiles&#x2F;i-accidentally-killed-it-and-e...</a>Yes, you can fix issues like this with a &quot;hard fork&quot; if you have a large enough consensus, but at that point, does the system of having smart contracts actually improve anything over the one where the software is downstream rather than the source of truth, or are you just replacing one form of &quot;human intervention required&quot; with a different but worse one?

It’s less about convenient syntax and more about simplifying the construction of abstractions.You could argue that the latter is the core drive to evolve the standard.

I have not observed the same with other languages, whether that’s Java, Rust, or Swift.And note this is about an older compiler version using an older library with a “newer” language spec (ie been around 5 years). If you use up to date toolchains there’s less of an issue. This is yet another perennial weakness in the c++ ecosystem that isn’t present in other languages because the standard committee continues to abrogate their duties here.

That’s the crux of the issue. People fear upgrading because of the bugs introduced by more complexity for more terse syntax.How much longer will you suffer?

Every new version of C++ (and sometimes even new versions of C++ compilers) can break code in subtle ways.You should always do extensive testing before upgrading.

I have observed significantly better useful features from Rust or Swift (or Scala) without horribly complicating the language like C++ does. More importantly, they migrate existing codebases and have migration tools instead of breaking old versions of syntax. Rust’s is the most ambitious here letting you mix match editions of the language within a single binary.

This is a perfect summary of C++: substantially more complicated for substantial convenience.Add Boost to the mix, as in this bug, and C++ becomes quite ludicrous really, but it can also combine efficiency, interoperability, and performance in a way that&#x27;s quite difficult to achieve in other languages.IMO, starting a good C++ project is an exercise in defining a specific language based on a subset of C++ more than anything else: done right, it can be a big lever, done wrong, it can be a big foot-gun.

Scala has the advantage (and disadvantage) of not caring one lick about backwards compatibility. They were perfectly happy to burn it all to the ground and redo the language&#x27;s syntax in v3. And even point releases of Scala frequently have breaking changes.

It&#x27;s not slightly, it&#x27;s substantially more complicated to become substantially more convenient. The leap from C to C++ is similar to the leap from assembly code to C. As you add features, the language becomes more complex. That&#x27;s just how it is.Most languages deal with this by limiting the features they have - but not C++! (or Scala, which is like Java&#x27;s C++)

All I took away from this is how more and more complicated C++ as a language becomes to make the syntax slightly more convenient.

More importantly, it’s apparently non-conforming: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;opensource.stackexchange.com&#x2F;a&#x2F;12412" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;opensource.stackexchange.com&#x2F;a&#x2F;12412</a>Other than that, simply not specifying any license would be equivalent.

It seems that the Solidity compiler complains if you do not specify one:<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;stackoverflow.com&#x2F;questions&#x2F;68332228&#x2F;spdx-license-identifier-not-provided-warning-what-does-it-mean" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;stackoverflow.com&#x2F;questions&#x2F;68332228&#x2F;spdx-license-id...</a>

If they eventually start paying attention to licenses, maybe?

No, AI companies are apparently exempted from copyright laws.edit: bring on the downvotes… doesn&#x27;t change the fact that fb illegally downloaded a lot of material to train, and so did every other AI company.

Would the license help to prevent an AI training on the example code?

I saw that too and had to double take lol

Okay, but why<pre><code> &#x2F;&#x2F; SPDX-License-Identifier: UNLICENSED
</code></pre>
on 6 lines of trivial example code? Of all the things to make proprietary...

Seems like the free comparison function in boost rational should have been constrained to non-rationalsi.e. !is_same_v&lt;rational, U&gt;

All test suites have coverage gaps. The fixing commit adds tests. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;gcc.gnu.org&#x2F;cgit&#x2F;gcc&#x2F;commit&#x2F;?id=c1e54c82a9e1855499ef7bb8827540e6a097532b" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;gcc.gnu.org&#x2F;cgit&#x2F;gcc&#x2F;commit&#x2F;?id=c1e54c82a9e1855499ef...</a>The better question, in my opinion, is how many other known defects are just sitting there in the GNU buganizer with good reports for more than a decade.

My only question is how this operator== override eluded the g++ test suite:<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;osec.io&#x2F;blog&#x2F;2025-08-11-compiler-bug-causes-compiler-bug&#x2F;#a-minimal-reproducer" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;osec.io&#x2F;blog&#x2F;2025-08-11-compiler-bug-causes-compiler...</a>

I brain-typo’d the title into a 12-year-old girl’s bug taking down Solidity and this, frankly, does not live up to that hype

Compiler Bug Causes Compiler Bug: How a 12-Year-Old G++ Bug Took Down Solidity