Not my post but I think it is an interesting discussion.

https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/49dgdb/why_i_am_not_happy_with_c17_c_17_outlook_march/

On Tuesday, 8 March 2016 at 14:16:22 UTC, maik klein wrote:
> Not my post but I think it is an interesting discussion.
>
> https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/49dgdb/why_i_am_not_happy_with_c17_c_17_outlook_march/

There are always these rants about what should and should not be on a release in the cpp reddit. No big deal there, people want concepts, but it has not been evaluated properly... So what if it comes in C++19? I see some critique of D there as well, but nothing interesting, really.

On Tuesday, 8 March 2016 at 14:31:56 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> On Tuesday, 8 March 2016 at 14:16:22 UTC, maik klein wrote:
>> Not my post but I think it is an interesting discussion.
>>
>> https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/49dgdb/why_i_am_not_happy_with_c17_c_17_outlook_march/
>
> There are always these rants about what should and should not be on a release in the cpp reddit. No big deal there, people want concepts, but it has not been evaluated properly... So what if it comes in C++19? I see some critique of D there as well, but nothing interesting, really.

C++17 was supposed to be a major release. They decided to turn it into major joke instead.

On 08-Mar-2016 17:16, maik klein wrote:
> Not my post but I think it is an interesting discussion.
>
> https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/49dgdb/why_i_am_not_happy_with_c17_c_17_outlook_march/
>

This more or less means that we (as in D enthusiasts) have some more time to carve up some "market" share. Till C++20 I guess.

-- 
Dmitry Olshansky

On Tuesday, 8 March 2016 at 15:33:21 UTC, krzaq wrote:
> C++17 was supposed to be a major release. They decided to turn it into major joke instead.

Well, it is the standard that is delayed. Implementations are on the way. "STL" points out that Microsoft will follow GCC by implementing concepts, but that Ballmer had put the compiler on hold for a few years so they have to play catch up on the compiler internals first. If you have a defacto-standard in the compilers then ISO will follow suit, that's the purpose of standardization.

But modules ought to have been in C++11... so it is annoying if they don't get it in C+17.

On Tuesday, 8 March 2016 at 15:54:46 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
> This more or less means that we (as in D enthusiasts) have some more time to carve up some "market" share. Till C++20 I guess.

Yes, but they got in parallelism ISO/IEC 29124:2010 and file system support.

On Tuesday, 8 March 2016 at 17:31:58 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> On Tuesday, 8 March 2016 at 15:54:46 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
>> This more or less means that we (as in D enthusiasts) have some more time to carve up some "market" share. Till C++20 I guess.
>
> Yes, but they got in parallelism ISO/IEC 29124:2010 and file system support.

I honestly don't care about those. Boost has them. Modules are far more important for me.

On Tuesday, 8 March 2016 at 18:24:54 UTC, Minas Mina wrote:
> I honestly don't care about those. Boost has them. Modules are far more important for me.

Yeah, language features matters a lot more than library additions.

On 3/8/16 10:54 AM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
> On 08-Mar-2016 17:16, maik klein wrote:
>> Not my post but I think it is an interesting discussion.
>>
>> https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/49dgdb/why_i_am_not_happy_with_c17_c_17_outlook_march/
>>
>>
>
> This more or less means that we (as in D enthusiasts) have some more
> time to carve up some "market" share. Till C++20 I guess.

Again people discuss the GC in D. -- Andrei

On Tuesday, 8 March 2016 at 21:32:28 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Again people discuss the GC in D. -- Andrei

Well, but the non-GC D example someone provided did not look like good advertising vs C++ either:

alias Allocator = AllocatorList!(a => Region!Mallocator(1024 * 16), Mallocator);

//…

  Allocator allocator;
  auto c = Container!(int, typeof(&allocator))(&allocator);