[bluGill]

The problem is she had specific ideas of what would make C++ better, and when 500 smart people are in the room there will be people who disagree. I've seen a lot of what I thought were good ideas get shot down when someone else brought out an objection I hadn't though of. Sometimes someone listens to the objection, spends a couple years of rework, and the process repeats a few times until the objections are satisfied, or at least the majority agree they are worth ignoring. This is not easy, but it is a required part of making them useful. Anything else just adds more inconsistencies until C++ is completely unusable.

Many people cannot handle it and think it is the C++ community being obstructionist when in fact it is just that we all have different needs, the only thing in common is we need a language that we can use for our problem so you better not mess that up.

[Jasper_]

That would be true, except large parts of the current C++ process are broken. The process advocates for papers, biasing towards people with personal quests and a lot of free time. I had many (informal) objections to <random> while it was in the standards process, but since I didn't have time to write a paper, the library got waved through in its broken state.