On Thursday, 13 March 2014 at 21:50:10 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 3/13/2014 11:41 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
2. There's the danger of getting into a design-by-committee
rut.
Back in the early days of the C++ Standards committee, I recall
some members negotiating in effect "vote for my proposal and
I'll vote for yours". I don't see that as a great way to design
a language.
Democratic committee processes also involve long, and I mean
loooong, timespans for making decisions. Like 13 years from
C++98 to C++11.
To be pedantic, there was a TC released in 2003. And many of the
C++11 features were available years ahead of time from all the
usual library sources. But I agree that the ISO process isn't
fast. In fact, I think that's an actual goal, as the industries
that depend on these standards are slow-moving as well.
