Stroustrup's talk on C++0x

[Bill Baxter]

BCS wrote:
> Reply to Walter,
> 
>> Sean Kelly wrote:
>>
>>> It actually has to be finished by year end 2008, and they have
>>> committed to getting the standard done on time even if it means
>>> dropping features. In fact, last I heard, a few features were indeed
>>> being dropped for lack of time, but I can't recall what they were.  I
>>> haven't been keeping that close an eye on the C++ standardization
>>> process recently, aside from the new memory model and atomic
>>> features.
>>>
>> C++0x started out with the stated purpose of just a few core language
>> tweaks, and a bunch of new libraries. Sometime in the last couple of
>> years, that was abandoned wholesale and a big raft of complex new
>> features were proposed.
>>
>> I think it's the success of D that lit the fire.
>>
> 
> Does that make the c++ crowd's main objective to remain as the dominant 
> language? 

I doubt it.  I think the C++ crowd's main objective is to turn C++ into 
something that doesn't suck like a dozen turbine jets strapped together 
with duct tape.  They want it to be a better language for themselves, 
because they have to use it every day.  I'm thinking specifically of 
generic and meta-programming functionality.  That's what looks like will 
get the most benefit from the new language additions.

> Maybe somebody needs to enforce term limit on programming 
> languages.

"You don't vote for kings." -- King Arthur, Monty Python and the Holy Grail.