@Richard Hodges
Thank you for your reply Richard. I really appreciate it.
>> There is a counter position, that C++ has only survived because of the
time and effort put in by the individuals who make up the “committee”.
No Richard. C++ survives only because there is so much codebase(mostly
legacy) written in it that it is simply not doable to drop it and switch
to a better language (Rust springs to mind) in one month/year/decade. Even
COBOL is still in use. Not because of individual users but precisely by the
fact that there are still vast areas where COBOL was used and nobody
has/wants to put effort/time/money.

As for what features C++ mostly lacks I'm not going to answer but I tell
you what it has too much. Too many committee members. Most of them build
their ego/carrier (how nice it looks on CV: a member of a committee) whilst
destroying C++. That's why Bjarne in numerous of his speeches was angry and
openly expressed his feelings about it and addressed that very issue. He
even wrote a paper about it, I don't remember now but I think it was called
"Don't sink the Vase".
Human vanity and greed destroyed vast numbers of beautiful things. C++ is
right now sharing that fate.

On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 9:43 AM Richard Hodges via Std-Discussion <
std-discussion_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 at 08:23, Artur Czajkowski via Std-Discussion <
> std-discussion_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> @Thiago Macieira via Std-Discussion
>> " The standard doesn't
>> care if the algorithms rerquired to implement it are quadratic or cubic
>> or
>> exponential. " [Misspelling original]
>> Pity, because standard should care about things of such importance.
>> You (the committee) are destroying the C++ language.
>>
>
> To be fair, I completely understand your view as I used to share it. Users
> of C++ are certainly frustrated by the apparent opaqueness of the
> standardisation process.
>
> There is a counter position, that C++ has only survived because of the
> time and effort put in by the individuals who make up the “committee”.
>
> Most of these people care deeply about the language. Often to the extent
> where progress is not made in case of “acting in haste, repenting at
> leisure”.
>
> Not all of these people agree with each other on all design and
> implementation decisions. Or even for that matter on whether a feature
> should be in the language.
>
> I think that one of the benefits of the headless, collegiate approach is
> that matters get discussed thoroughly and the overall discipline of
> computer languages is furthered (although sadly often behind closed doors,
> so the wider user base do not witness and therefore benefit from the
> knowledge gained during these sessions).
>
> One of the downsides is that there is no firm leader who can say, “the
> users have spoken - they shall have their feature”, which is entirely
> possible in a proprietary language owned exclusively by a huge corporation.
>
> Also there is no way for the user base to communicate the features they
> need to WG21, other than writing a paper - which is a specialised skill in
> itself.
>
> It’s important to understand that writing compilers is not a
> profit-motivated activity.
>
> (Almost) nobody has paid for a compiler since the turn of the millennium.
> Every program you compile is courtesy of some individual or corporation who
> chose to donate time and/or money.
>
> For this reason, there is no fundamental driver for providing “customer
> service”. Customer service is a tool for gaining competitive advantage in a
> contested marketplace. It’s not a fundamental right of humanity.
>
> Out of interest, what feature do you think c++ most sorely lacks?
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 3:53 AM Thiago Macieira via Std-Discussion <
>> std-discussion_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, 8 July 2020 18:39:35 PDT Mandeep Sandhu via Std-Discussion
>>> wrote:
>>> > Can someone explain to me why it takes such a long time to compile?
>>> > Keeping the strings to under 5K, makes the program compile in about 8
>>> > secs.
>>>
>>> You should ask that question in the GCC mailing list. The standard has
>>> nothing
>>> to do with how long compilers take to compile anything. The standard
>>> doesn't
>>> care if the algorithms rerquired to implement it are quadratic or cubic
>>> or
>>> exponential.
>>>
>>> Suggestion: since this is clearly a generated file, instead of using
>>> std::unordered_set, use the gperf application or another perfect hash
>>> generator.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
>>> Software Architect - Intel System Software Products
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Std-Discussion mailing list
>>> Std-Discussion_at_[hidden]
>>> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-discussion
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> Best regards
>> *Artur Czajkowski*
>>
>> https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=GitAtomic.GitAtomic
>>
>> --
>> Std-Discussion mailing list
>> Std-Discussion_at_[hidden]
>> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-discussion
>>
> --
> Richard Hodges
> hodges.r_at_[hidden]
> office: +442032898513
> home: +376841522
> mobile: +376380212
>
> --
> Std-Discussion mailing list
> Std-Discussion_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-discussion
>

-- 
Best regards
*Artur Czajkowski*
https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=GitAtomic.GitAtomic