I don't see anything that belongs on this mailing list here.

There is at least as much nonsense and misinformation in the video as
accurate information, and the video is overall not conducive to furthering
C++ evolution.

   - The producer claims you have to use "std::cout <<" prior to C++23, but
   you can also use std::puts and std::printf.
   - The producer rants about the complexity of <random> vs. Python's
   randint function, using std::random_device as he claims isn't necessary,
   and Python's usage would be just as complex if it let you select your own
   distributions and PRNGs.
   - The producer claims there are too many uses of static,
   without mentioning that one of these is obsoleted by unnamed namespaces.
   - The producer cherry-picks negative naming choices like long (instead
   of i64) in C++, and cherry-picks good naming choices like Java's names
   for containers, but Java reuses the same naming scheme for its integers.
   You can cherry-pick good and bad names from any programming language all
   day long, and not much is accomplished by doing so.

Maybe it gets better throughout the video, but it seems like the point here
is to shit on C++ as hard as possible while ignoring important details, and
without proposing any reasonable solution or being ignorant of an already
existing solution.

Some of the criticisms are fair, but of those, a lot are ancient problems
or even inherited from C, and not much can be done about them.

On Sat, 22 Nov 2025 at 00:09, organicoman via Std-Proposals <
std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Hello,
> I saw this video, and i felt it would be interesting to hear other's
> opinions.
>
> https://youtu.be/7fGB-hjc2Gc?si=EqMPxxxvS40lL4Yv
>
> Regards
> Og
>
>
>
> Sent from my Galaxy
>
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>