3 ms·

I propose a theory/rule that every new C++ version takes superlinearly longer than the previous to implement. Currently the Standard is at C++23 and we are ~4

I propose a theory/rule that every new C++ version takes superlinearly longer than the previous to implement. Currently the Standard is at C++23 and we are ~4 years behind (C++20 is not portable, as you say). At this rate, by the time we get to C++40 or 50, compilers could be behind to a comical degree, like 15 years. Personally I am interested to see how many unimplemented features it takes before the Committee takes action. (I would find it superbly amusing if they simply did nothing and we got to a point where no new C++ features ever became available.)

layer8 2y ago
You may have missed that C++97 took six years to fully implement, due to export, and only a single compiler actually ever implemented it.
pjmlp 2y ago
This is why I have the very unpopular opinion that C++26 is going to be the very last standard that anyone cares about. It will be good enough for the industry use cases where C++ matters, while other languages keep slowly eroding C++'s market share. Example of such scenario, LLVM, GCC, JVM, V8, CLR are all currently settled on C++17, maybe eventually C++20, they don't need any additional features, for their C++ use cases, other than having GCC and clang keep up with ISO. How many people care about COBOL or Fortran 2023 standards?
- fweimer 2y ago
  GCC is still expected to bootstrap from a C++11 compiler. (For self-hosting compilers, language version choice is not only about useful language features.) The built compiler defaults to C++17. I think the remaining obstacle before moving to C++20 by default is more experience with (and fewer bugs in) the support for modules.