[LexiMax]

> Being conservative with features and deliberately not implementing them are two different thing.

There is no version of the C++ standard that lacks features like exceptions, RTTI, and fully functional templates.

If the compiler isn't implementing all of a particular standard then it's not standard C++. If an implementation has no interest in standard C++, why give those implementations a seat at the table in the first place? Those implementations can continue on with their C++ fork without mandating requirements to anyone else.

[BoredomIsFun]

> If the compiler isn't implementing all of a particular standard then it's not standard C++.

C++ have historically been driven by practicalities, and violated standards on regular basis, when it deemed useful.

> Those implementations can continue on with their C++ fork without mandating requirements to anyone else.

Then they will diverge too much, like it happened with countless number of other languages, like Lisp.

[LexiMax]

> Then they will diverge too much, like it happened with countless number of other languages, like Lisp.

Forgive me if I am unconvinced that the existence of DSP-friendly dialects of C++ will cause the kinds of language fracturing that befell Lisp.

DSP workloads are relatively rare compared to the other kinds of workloads C++ is tasked with, and even in those instances a lot of DSP work is starting to be done on more traditional architectures like ARM Cortex-M.