[ksk]

>Comparing a later version of language to an earlier one to measure modernism seems rather pointless.

C++ is a production ready systems language, not a theoretical CS research paper. How do you propose we define modern in this context then? As I'm sure you're aware, it takes years to vet design features, debate whether they can be implemented, whether they affect performance, whether they have unintended side-effects, whether they break existing code, etc. 'Modern' concepts are already old by then. Also, sometimes features can't be added to a language because of practical real-world issues that have nothing to do with the language itself. (e.g. longer compile times).

I don't see anything particularly wrong with calling a language modern as it adopts features. Certainly, I would agree that one should not then claim the language to be modern in the sense of cutting edge research.

[Guthur]

It implies that the features are somehow new and ground breaking.

Lambdas have been understood for many many years, the same goes for GC. The were not only in the domain of academia.

Common Lisp has many of these features and more, being a multi-paradigm programming language. And has been used in industry for many many years. Yet people say CL is antiquated while it has so called 'modern' features.

[ksk]

They are groundbreaking in the sense that no production ready systems language has those features, except C++. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. It really is a big deal to design a language with such features that are implementable with zero overhead.