I prefer this 'interview': http://www.oceanwave.com/technical-resources/humor/c++-hoax.html http://www.oceanwave.com/technical-resources/humor/c++-hoax.... :D

I prefer this 'interview': http://www.oceanwave.com/technical-resources/humor/c++-hoax.html http://www.oceanwave.com/technical-resources/humor/c++-hoax.... :D (In the proper article) The first improvement he mentions, being able to end the template with >> instead of > > is of course because of potential clashes with the >> operator. This reminds me how much I despise C++ templates. I used to read Dr Dobb's journal(?) in the late 90s and I remember this long running discussion about creating a generic pointer with templates. Every issue someone would point out the subtle faults with the previous attempt and then make a brilliant improvement... repeat ad nauseam. I don't know if they ever got one that actually worked with no bugs. I also remember the enormous screaming matches over adding generics to Java. Fundamentally the problem was that there wasn't any way to vote no. That showed that the JCP was broken long before Apache tossed their toys out of the cot.