Re:Metaclasses: Thoughts on generative C++
by ThatGeoGuy on Friday July 28, 2017 @01:10PM
(#14875780)
I would argue that you're eschewing Lisp and Scheme in terms of independent, active implementations, however in a more general sense I agree.
Moving fast (and breaking things) is just not what the standardization committee does, and that's fine. They can move faster since C++11/14, but sometimes you really don't want a giant moving target with new features all the time. I think their approach works for the kind of environment you find C++ used in.
The only language today with more independent implementations than C++ is C. Compared to C, C++ evolution is not slow — processes involving so many implementers are inherently not in fast-forward mode.
Most major languages only have a handful of active implementations, if it's not just one implementation. Most don't have specs.