CppCon 2026

For a long time, programming was constrained by our ability to produce code. That constraint is eroding rapidly. AI systems can now generate substantial amounts of code with little effort, while inspection, validation, and integration remain difficult.

This transition alters the economics of software engineering. Code is becoming easier to generate than to reason about, and sound judgment grows scarcer relative to specialized intelligence. The emphasis shifts from authoring programs to understanding systems: their structure, invariants, interactions, and long-term evolution.

The talk examines this transition through the lenses of history, language design, and recent developments in AI and metaprogramming. It argues that the central challenges ahead concern not code generation, but the management of complexity at scale.

Topics include: - historical parallels and failed predictions in computing - AI-assisted software development - language design and metaprogramming - C++ reflection and compile-time programming - abstraction as context compression - complexity management in large systems

AI will undoubtedly transform how we build software. As before, the decisive factor will be our capacity to adapt.

C++ Views were introduced with C++20 and extended with C++23 and C++26. They are lightweight objects that specify how to use (specific) elements of collections and their values. By composed into pipelines, programmers can easily define complex processing of collections of data.

However, the use of views also has pitfalls and traps. Therefore you should know about * The consequences of reference semantics * The problems of caching Views * The problems of using const with views * The Filter View Fiasco

This talk gives an overview about both the technology and where to pay special attention.

The C++ standard is moving more and more in the direction of safety. In the process, the committee is providing us with tools to help make our own code safer.

Many of these tools are specifically around numerics and none of them are enabled by default! To make matters worse, most C++ programmers don't even know these library features exist! Even if they did know, they wouldn't use them, because they are far too wordy.

We're going to do a survey of the relatively recently added new numeric safety related language features and see how they might come together in a real-ish project.

To write the best C++ application code, you must think like a library author. This talk reframes application development as a form of library design, where every component is a potential asset for future maintenance and extension.

We'll survey the C++ language features that empower library authors to create powerful, flexible, and safe abstractions. From there, we'll distill the 'library author mindset.’ You will leave with concrete principles and techniques to make your application code more modular, maintainable, composable, reusable, testable, and ultimately, more valuable.

How to Choose and Use the Right Container in Modern C++: Part 1, Classic Containers

Choosing the right container and using it correctly can have a profound impact on the performance of a program, but doing so is harder than you might think. In Part 1 we will survey the containers and adaptors in the C++17 Standard Library, and discuss how to choose the best tool for the job and extract the best performance from it. We will consider the abstractions they model and the practical limitations they impose, and find that choosing between them requires an understanding not only of the speed and size tradeoffs of each container, but also of the difference between algorithmic complexity and actual behavior. And we will flag aspects of the standard containers that, without this understanding, can lead you to the wrong choice.

How to Choose and Use the Right Container in Modern C++: Part 2, New and Future Containers

Choosing the right container and using it correctly can have a profound impact on the performance of a program, but doing so is harder than you might think. In Part 2 we will survey the new containers and adaptors introduced to the Standard Library in C++23/26, and discuss how to choose the best tool for the job and extract the best performance from it. We will consider the abstractions they model and the practical limitations they impose, and find that choosing between them requires an understanding not only of the speed and size tradeoffs of each container, but also of the difference between algorithmic complexity and actual behavior. And we will examine a proposal for a future container that diverges from the historical STL design principles and ask: what makes for a good container design?

To navigate safely, a robot must simultaneously ingest high-frequency sensor data, compute complex spatial algorithms, and publish control commands. Historically, frameworks like ROS 2 have handled this via asynchronous callbacks. However, as autonomous stacks scale, relying heavily on unstructured callbacks can obscure control flow, making state synchronization difficult and robust task cancellation notoriously complex.

This talk explores how to transform unstructured, callback-based architectures in a robotics navigation stack into declarative pipelines using structured concurrency (specifically, C++ Senders and Receivers via stdexec). Attendees will dive into two real-world architectural examples: a collision monitor and a waypoint follower, showcasing readable logic pipelines, thread-hopping between an event loop and a static thread pool, and clean task cancellation.

As legacy C++ codebases evolve to meet new requirements, fix architectural issues, and address performance bottlenecks, refactoring becomes inevitable — but full rewrites are risky, costly, and rarely practical. This talk explores how modern C++ features — especially functional programming techniques and type erasure — can be used to refactor and extend legacy systems. We will present a concrete, low-risk, and measurable four-step technical framework for incremental modernization, by leveraging pure functions, discriminated union types, and type-erased callables to achieve safer, more flexible code with compile-time guarantees, even in traditionally object-oriented codebases.

The core of the talk will walk through the entire process on a concrete code example, illustrating (1) how to isolate existing logic, (2) define safer data models using immutable types, (3) deploy type erasure to create a robust, non-disruptive adapter boundary between old and new code, and (4) measurably execute the migration with safe testing practices. We will also share lessons learned from real-world experience and conclude by showing how these foundational patterns can be extended into future-thinking designs, leveraging examples with accepted C++26 features. Every step is grounded in real production constraints and trade-offs, and the techniques transfer directly to any domain where full rewrites are not an option. Attendees will walk away equipped with practical strategies to incrementally refactor your legacy systems without sacrificing stability or velocity.

Language bindings for C++ can be valuable tools for developers who wish to make C++ libraries available for use in other programming languages, like Python. There are many reasons developers may wish to do this, including testing, prototyping, or performance.

One of the issues often faced when writing bindings for C++ is the need to write excessive amounts of boilerplate code to bridge the gap between the C++ types and interfaces and their equivalents in other languages.

Building on previous presentations, this talk will not just explore how you can use Reflection in C++26 to generate the necessary binding code, but also how you can integrate this into a CMake-based build system to enable the automatic generation of bindings for existing classes or libraries with minimal additions. We will present real-world examples, primarily using Python, to show how language bindings can be automatically generated, but we also show how this can be extended to other languages.

First day on a new project. You set up your workstation and then download a repository of over 1,000,000 lines of code. Even more intimidating, the code has been around for 20 years. Parts are in legacy C++, parts use the latest C++26 features, and increasingly, AI coding assistants are weaving new code through all of it, meaning some parts of the codebase may have never been fully understood by a developer. You feel overwhelmed. Don't Panic! In this talk, we share techniques and tools that real engineers use to find their bearings in code they didn't write, from the humble grep through debuggers and profilers to time-travel debugging and AI-assisted exploration. The audience will leave this talk with a mix of simple and advanced tricks for navigating large and complicated codebases.

C++ lifetime management is fundamentally built around synchronous scope exit. Constructors establish invariants, destructors release resources, and RAII permits ownership and cleanup to compose naturally with ordinary control flow. Asynchronous systems disrupt this model. Destruction may itself require asynchronous work, and “just launch another task in the destructor” quickly turns deterministic lifetime management into unstructured background activity.

This talk explores the implementation of async lifetime management in std::execution, based on the enter/exit scope sender framework proposed in P3955. Rather than treating async construction and destruction as special cases, the model reframes them as composable asynchronous protocols built around explicit async scope entry and exit operations. The talk follows the process of turning these ideas into working code, beginning from the low-level enter/exit sender abstractions and progressively assembling higher-level lifetime facilities on top. Along the way, the implementation uncovers an important self-similarity in the problem domain: Higher-level async lifetime facilities can themselves be expressed in terms of the same lower-level async lifetime primitives.

The implementation discussion focuses on the machinery required to make these guarantees real: Coordinating async teardown within structured concurrency, managing partially-entered scopes, and preserving deterministic cleanup semantics even when destruction itself becomes asynchronous. The resulting design serves both as a practical exploration of async lifetime management and as a case study in how implementing an abstraction can reveal deeper structural properties hiding inside the model itself.

The software in most embedded projects written in 2026 looks like the software in embedded projects written in 1996. This isn't because 1996 was the peak of innovation and quality but rather has more to do with biases and FUD. Unfortunately, much of the world suffers from these choices: users, developers, managers, and shareholders.

There are better ways to write firmware for embedded systems; proven techniques and implementation strategies that I will describe in this talk. We will explore techniques based on abstraction and composition that maximize understanding while reducing the codegen footprint. We will apply these strategies at all levels of the firmware stack: interrupts, register manipulation, peripheral communications, and the application glue.

Join me and leave with open-source libraries, an open-source starter project, and techniques that you can apply to your greenfield and existing projects.

Today's world runs on C++. That's because, in domains requiring scale, performance, low latency, and fine-grained control over concurrency, C++ is second to none! Yet in recent years, a growing concern has emerged: C++ programs are often considered unsafe — not because of programmer negligence, but because the language itself provides insufficient mechanisms to prevent or reliably detect undefined behavior (UB).

For those financially and technically invested in C++, its current lack of language safety raises a fundamental question: How can we evolve ISO C++ to be UB-safe without necessarily sacrificing runtime performance, and without breaking backward compatibility with existing, valid C++ code?

In this talk, we begin by motivating an overall approach to UB-safety that starts from a simple but uncompromising premise: each individual potential source of UB must be able to be detected via runtime checking. Crucially, this approach eliminates the notion of "safe" and "unsafe" regions of a program — there is no place where UB can hide, and no need to switch languages, subsets, or tools to achieve comprehensive coverage.

We then examine how the C++26 contracts facility provides the essential foundation for transforming optional runtime checks into the practical, scalable mechanisms to eliminate UB bugs in production software. Contracts give developers fine-grained control over where and when checking occurs, allowing runtime overhead to be spent where it is affordable or most valuable — such as in new, rarely executed, or security-critical code. These decisions naturally evolve over time, as long-running checks that never fire may no longer justify their cost.

Finally, we outline the concrete steps of an incremental journey toward reducing undefined behavior in ISO C++. The result is a model of UB-safety — rooted in C++26 contracts and optional runtime checking — that is competitive with, and in key respects stronger than, approaches taken by other high-performance languages. Most importantly, this model applies not only to new code, but to the vast body of existing C++ software already in the wild.