3 ms·

I agree that it might have been possible to get this done much earlier, but I don't agree with your premise that "done is better than perfect". Lots of people c

I agree that it might have been possible to get this done much earlier, but I don't agree with your premise that "done is better than perfect". Lots of people complain that while C++ packs a lot of features, it's ugly and everything is mismatched, as it seems. I don't necessarily agree completely, but a number of things are just annoying (e.g. how do you overload pre- and postfix ++? operator++() and operator++(int), where the dummy int doesn't do anything. Beautiful.) I believe that even at the cost of speed of progress, getting this kind of impactful feature right is worth the trouble, especially since therr are already other possibilities for using coroutines in C right now, although they're not nicely fitted into the language.

markdoubleyou 8y ago
That's fair. We're just speaking from two different perspectives: You (and the committee) want the best possible language, and you're willing to wait 5 years to get it. I want to see C++ evolve quickly so I can get some productivity and performance wins, in which case I'd probably start using the language for more projects. I gather there was enough mileage on Gor's proposal that it wasn't some vector<bool> kind of screwup, so I would have liked to have seen them call it good and ship it. So average Joe Users like me have to wait and wait while it's made better and better. If you'd put this decision to a vote of 10,000 MSVC users instead of a bunch of compiler vendors and Google engineers, I bet coroutines would've been merged, warts and all. Instead, the years pass, attention drifts, modern languages beckon, and C++ becomes even more niche.