> people wish could be fixed (but can't due to backwards compatibility) This is actually not completely true. The only example I can think of right now is how

> people wish could be fixed (but can't due to backwards compatibility) This is actually not completely true. The only example I can think of right now is how C++20 deprecated some uses of volatile, but the standards definitely do deprecate features and break backwards compatibility. This is done with care, only when it makes sense. The standards and individual papers/proposals are public, so feel free to take a look, they include rationales in such cases. > My question is why the need to keep adding features? Sure if something comes out that C++ is desperately lacking, add it in. Well, that already is how it works. Just because you don't know about some change doesn't mean it wasn't worthwhile. There are often some complaints regarding the standardization process itself though, I think that, e.g., the coroutines proposals situation with the multiple competing proposals was pretty controversial. But that's just how it is with C, C++ (and Ada, Pascal, Basic, ...). It seems like the days of ISO reigning over programming languages are over though, in that newer programming languages aren't given over to ISO.