Features like concepts were not added on a whim: It took 17 years (!) from 2003 to 2020 from the first paper on concepts to inclusion in the standard. And the first ideas for it (concept-constrained templates) were from 1986 or even further back. https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2003/n1510.pdf For a history see https://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.0027     There are three sides of C++: What the language can do (abstract machine) and how to express it (syntax and library additions). It fundamentally changes a proposal, in what category it falls. If a feature can be expressed with hundreds of lines of code. Then it is clear, what it does and how the abstract machine would run it. Then one could discuss how to make it easier to use / accessible and how to write code for it. If every idea for a syntax change was implemented, C++ would be even more gigantic as it already is. The speed of improvements of C++ is huge, especially considering the ISO process and coordination with that huge ecosystem for a language spanning low-level to high-level and being used in many critical systems. To critically question any change is mandatory. Also please have some more respect for people on this list trying to express proposals with existing code. They put a lot of effort into it to contribute to the discussion.   -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von:Ruud Rietvink via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> C++ moderators really don't like new keywords or constructions that make life easier. They make up template constructions to allow the new functionality or existing C++ code to implement it in a a roundabout way. That's probably the reason why C++ doesn't have things like: - properties (get; set;) - static constructors Instead we get template additions like concepts that may have benefits but probably doesn't appeal new developers. Or another type of string or map. It just gets too complicated to learn it at school, or as a first computer language. C++ is becoming the new Cobol.