[tialaramex]

> Ignoring the fact that WG21 is not a single person or entity, but 200 people with disjoint interests, your whole argument doesn't make sense.

How did you get the idea that I mistakenly believed WG21 is a "single person or entity"?

> There is no substitute for correctness. You need to satisfy the requirements or stuff doesn't work. Whether the "doesn't work" means an error, a crash, corrupt memory, resource leaks or incorrect results doesn't really make much of a difference: the code is incorrect and should be fixed.

This is how WG21 ended up here. Programmers who believe that it just "doesn't really make much of a difference". Except, it turns out that everybody else can tell the difference

[mgaunard]

> How did you get the idea that I mistakenly believed WG21 is a "single person or entity"?

> > classic WG21 choice

> This is how WG21 ended up here. Programmers who believe that it just "doesn't really make much of a difference". Except, it turns out that everybody else can tell the difference

C++ is a practical language for practical programmers solving real problems. Language purists or Rust zealots will be happier elsewhere.

[tialaramex]

> classic WG21 choice

So if I said that "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism" act is a classic naming choice by the US Congress your understanding would be that I've mistaken the Congress for a "single person or entity" ? Even though in reality this stupid habit (ridiculous acronyms in the titles of legislation) is indeed a hallmark of American law making and not of some imaginary single person ? I guess I can't help you.

WG21 may consist of dozens of people, but the character of its decisions is a reflection of the larger body, not somehow merely a reflection of those individuals. To my mind ISO's process is tremendously ill-suited to the work of developing programming languages, and while JTC1 itself makes sense, neither SC22 nor the various working groups are a good way to develop these languages.

> C++ is a practical language for practical programmers solving real problems. Language purists or Rust zealots will be happier elsewhere.

The problem with this characterization as a "Practical" language is that the user community do not want your "solutions" any more being as how you think it just "doesn't really make much of a difference" what happens to them when, inevitably, you are less than perfect.

That's not very practical at all.

[mgaunard]

Users should make their own opinions and evaluate what is the solution that best satisfies their requirements -- which in most cases should be to build it themselves (third party code is mostly a liability in software development).

It seems you want to force people to use your "one true way". That's not programming, that's a religion.