Language discussions are always somewhat like debating the merits of various sports teams. Because the underlying computer architecture is the same, the how of

Language discussions are always somewhat like debating the merits of various sports teams. Because the underlying computer architecture is the same, the how of expressing intent to the compiler for what you want it to do is always a mix of functional capabilities and aesthetics. The C++ changes to templates are great, but they are only great if you like templates. Just like with enough cheese on them I'll eat brussels sprouts but I'm not a fan. Similarly with the other new features, that folks who love C++ are really excited about. If I were advising graduate students I might have them evaluate the text to code ratio of various programming environments. I think it would make for some interesting insights into the ability to express execution as language. Then if you added 'total time to implement' from idea, and errors per thousand lines of code in the various choices you might be able to derive some metrics for how "effective" these languages were. That said, I really appreciate someone putting down examples of all the changes. That is much easier for someone like me to internalize than the change text in the standard!