Instead of defensiveness, why not talk about the ways in which the C++ committee is changing how they're operating (or even leaving ISO) and changing their cult

Instead of defensiveness, why not talk about the ways in which the C++ committee is changing how they're operating (or even leaving ISO) and changing their culture to shore up these things. Look at past Scott Meyers talks (e.g. [1]). He highlights how the committee has arbitrary set of principles that can be applied to justify or reject any proposal and the inconsistencies in the language are a reflection of this. This isn't a problem of the language itself but rather that it's design by committee with 4 major front-end implementations (Intel, MSVC, Clang, GCC although I believe Intel is standardizing on the Clang front-end at least). Organizational issues like that are tough to spot but it's become clear now for several years that Rust is going to beat C++ silly if the C++ committee doesn't clean up their act and steer the C++ community a bit better (e.g. still no ABI specification, no improvements on macros, no standardized build system, modules are a joke, no standardized package system, etc etc). They're not effective stewards not least of which because they can't even take good impactful ideas from Rust and copy them. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAWA1DuvCnQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAWA1DuvCnQ