[binary132]

I don’t think the committee / proposals process is necessarily bad. It is a good way to develop a formal specification for a portable and highly complex language with many pitfalls and serious, industrial-level legacy compatibility requirements.

It might be better if it had a true BDFL, instead of a spiritual guide, and I do worry about the committee getting too far ahead of the industry and leaving it behind, plus what will happen when Stroustrup finally retires in earnest.

But yeah, now and then it does produce a turd, and there’s only so much turd-polishing you can really do.

I guess I’m just saying it’s a development model with pros and cons. The pros are necessary. The associated cons are inevitable.

[fsloth]

To be specific I was not critizing or promoting any particular governance or design model. Just that this particular authority has had it’s more dysfunctional moments in it’s output - one should not presume all features of C++ are splendid examples of software design.

[binary132]

there are definitely some total stinkers.

[pjmlp]

Any language under ISO doesn't have any spiritual guide, that role is gone the moment ISO takes over.

Everyone has one vote, and everything turns around politics to win mini-elections per feature evolution stage.