3 ms·

I think you fundamentally mischaracterize the intent of the standards committee's additions to C++: a large part of the changes introduced from C++11 on are in

I think you fundamentally mischaracterize the intent of the standards committee's additions to C++: a large part of the changes introduced from C++11 on are intended to simplify use of the language. Yes, it does take the form of additions, because legacy codebase support makes it hard to remove old features. But the intent is to take user code patterns which accomplished something either indirectly or via hacks and make the code declarative. Yes this does put more responsibility on the compiler, but will bring long-term benefits. "Must implement this intentionally designed feature correctly" versus "must replicate this historical accident of behavior exactly". I think that's what bothers me about your comment; your phrasing "continually stuff more features into the language" implies a short-sightedness, but if you actually follow the work of the committee you can see that the thinking all the way from when it was C++0x to now maintains a long-term view.

DoofusOfDeath 9y ago
You're post nicely summarizes the dual nature of the evolution fo the C++ standard: it gets more complex in certain ways, so the language hopefully gets simpler in other ways. In think the GP was correct in pointing out that the ways in which the language is getting more complex is a problem for implementations of the compiler and/or the standard C++ library. You may be correct that the GP was unfairly calling the committee "eager" to make the language more complex. But perhaps we can agree that the language is becoming more complex, and that the complexity comes at a cost.