[skgoa]

It seems to be a matter of propper balance. You can elevate patterns, idioms etc. to language features and you can add entirely new features that enable entirely new solutions. Java and Python are doing this sensibly. But burying devs in an avalanche of new language features that change the way you are supposed to do fundamental things is going to make it much harder to keep up. Especially when this happens every 3 years.

[carlsborg]

> Java and Python are doing this sensibly.

IMO this is because Java and python are driven by open “community processes” where anyone can influence the language. C++ standards are influenced by full members of some kind of iso national bodies, from what I remember.

[gpderetta]

Actually recently the C++ standardisation has become significantly more open. Anyone can submit papers and attend meetings (attendance has skyrocketed in the last few years), only full members and national bodies can participate on formal votes, but every body participates in informal votes.

The biggest issue is that the language is first defined by a standard and there are multiple implementations, which makes it much harder to iterate, and, as it is hard to get any moderately complex proposal through, often you can see the lack of an overall unified design.

I do believe that c++ lacks a strong benevolent dictator figure. Stroustup abdicated his position probably too early.

[pjmlp]

Anyone can be part of ISO process, you just need to write a paper for your change and be willing to champion it, or find supporter to champion it for yourself.

https://isocpp.org/std/the-life-of-an-iso-proposal