[lacker]

But C with vector, string, hash_map, const&, destructors and scoped_ptr is a pretty good language! It's certainly better than plain C. It's just not as aesthetically pleasing that it sits inside the larger monstrosity that is C++.

[jacquesm]

Thus proving the authors point even further.

It is funny how everybody really seems to have their own favorite subset of C++.

[mbrubeck]

Just as Lisp programmers add new syntax and vocabulary to build custom languages, C++ programmers do the same by taking them away.

[abrahamsen]

Does anyone really use all of Common Lisp?

I'd say the justification for all of the large languages (like C++ and Common Lisp) is the same. You may not need all of it, but the features you do need will at least be standardized, compared to using a small language with ad-hoc extensions to achieve the same.

[ I here include the standard library as part of the language, for languages with extensive meta-programming support like C++ and Common Lisp, it makes little sense to distinguish. ]

[scott_s]

Most users also probably have their own favorite subset of Word.

[jacquesm]

You've nailed it right on the head there though, when offered a bloated solution, people will 'subset', when offered something small and powerful people will customize.

[scott_s]

You missed my point. Most users each probably have a different subset of Word.

[jacquesm]

No, I got it all right, that's what I meant. Each user subsets word for themselves in to what they need/can handle.

[scott_s]

No, that's still not my point. Each user has a different subset of Word. Hence, the only set that contains all of the features that all users use is Word itself. If everyone uses a different subset, it's not accurate to call it bloated, too large, or complain it has unnecessary features. All features are necessary for someone.