> It's not as basic as you imagine, evidently. If this was any other language, the one true language authority would start building an implementation with a spe

> It's not as basic as you imagine, evidently. If this was any other language, the one true language authority would start building an implementation with a spec that is constantly in flux, and it could take just as long to complete. Alternatively, they'd break compatibility and shrug off the hundreds of man-years of work they generated downstream. I don’t think that’s the reason. The issue isn’t modules themselves. They’re imperfect but no solution was going to be. The hostility to defining things that would make them usable resulted in them being unusable. An unusable feature is as good as one that doesn’t exist. > They did change. We are getting regular updates and corrections now. I think the committee is more open to proposals than ever, perhaps too open. I can hardly keep up with all the cool stuff they add every couple of years. They dick around forever and the meaningful changes are ones that aren’t really the big pain points. And when they try to solve meaningful pain points (eg ranges) they end up doing such a piss poor job that it ends up being overly complex and solving the original problem poorly. C++ as a language has utterly failed. That’s why standards body participants like Herb and Channing are trying to come ups it’s their own successor. If they thought it was solvable within the standards body they would have.