[dralley]

> They brought this on themselves being Leadership By Community rather than forming a working group to get a standard out.

First of all, the idea that the C++ standards process is some pinnacle of productivity and velocity is endlessly funny to me. Maybe by the time C++26 comes out, all of the features in C++23 might be considered "usable" with more than one compiler. That's saying nothing of the purgatory that certain features have been in for years.

Second, who implements the standards? Google pulled back most of their resources from Clang. Most development on C/C++ compilers is currently done by companies like Microsoft and Red Hat and Intel that have a lot of paying customers relying on those ecosystems. That's a function of time and penetration, not whether there's a "committee" involved.

Third, politics exist in C++ as well. People snipe at each other in public and on private mailing lists and conferences. They are not immune from "unprofessionalism".

[qsdf38100]

I don’t get why c++ has to be bad for rust to be a good language.

[dralley]

I'm not criticizing C++ as such, I'm criticizing the idea that a standards committee is the reason that C++ develops quickly (and that detail isn't even obviously true), or that lack of a standards committee is the reason Rust doesn't (which also isn't obviously true).

The whole line of argument is just absurd. Look at Go or Python or Ruby - none of them are ruled by a standards committee, and all of them are very popular and see plenty of development. And frankly I don't think Rust actually develops slower than C++ does. Rust delivers features every 6 weeks rather than every 3 years, so it can be hard to tell just how much progress has actually been made even when it is actually quite a lot.