[ComputerGuru]

A couple of nitpicks:

C++/Tr1 has also solved many of the same problems without needing a new compiler

Not true. While many of the boost/tr1/c++0x features are introduced via new headers, there are many compiler-level changes, and that's why you need to use the latest versions of clang/g++/msvc/icc to take advantage of them. Things like r-value references just can't be done without a "new" compiler.

My other nitpick is his code sample: I've been write C++ for years but I must say his code sample made my eyes bleed. It's rather far from being demonstrative proof that C++ is elegant and need not be replaced. He should have just imported all the namespaces and been done with it, for starters, in this trivial sample.

[CJefferson]

I wonder if you are confusing TR1 (which came out several years ago), and C++11.

TR1 was designed to not need compiler extensions (although some parts of type_traits, that AFAIK no-one ever used in the TR1 days, could be improved with compiler support). TR1 added regex and tuple among others. It certainly didn't have rvalue references.

C++11 is the new big standard, which certainly requires large amounts of compiler support.

[ComputerGuru]

No, but I suspect the author of TFA is/has. That would explain the inconsistencies throughout his post.