C++17

[Era Scarecrow via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 28 January 2016 at 02:59:38 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> There's no large team, no governing body, no committee to drive 
> development. Everyone using it needs to accept that any 
> particular personal peeve they have with the language are only 
> going to get changed in one of two ways: there's enough 
> momentum behind it to cause it to percolate up to the top of 
> the priority list for the core developers, or if you do it 
> yourself. That's what it boils down to.

  You know, this reminds me when i worked in a software company 
for a short while. I found it utterly aggravating. There was code 
i could work on and fix and do, but the whole structure of it 
required a number of things, including getting permission to work 
on it. You couldn't just work on it and get it working, you had 
to go through a series of steps to get approval to work on it. QA 
were a separate set of testers (who in my experience weren't 
coders so couldn't even get their tests to work), a database list 
of bugs and requests, and you didn't necessarily get any option 
of working on at all. Often i felt like i was sitting on my hands 
when it could have taken me 15 minutes to just fix the damn thing.

  I'm not saying a committee or governing body is bad, but when 
it's too large (or tries to be) then it becomes it's own 
bottleneck taking 100x longer than needed. My own preference for 
coding is 1) Get it to work, 2) Optimize, 3) Beautify it.