C++0x

Why the hell are they putting all this effort into improving/fixing C++, when everyone knows it's the epitome of an imperfect language, and we've already got languages like D that are a little more sane.

I petition we euthanize C++ for the lives and innumerable man-hours it has wasted. Take her out back and put her down.

>>1
It wouldn't be quite as bad if they didn't have this retarded "HEY GUYS WE NEED TO MAINTAIN COMPATIBILITY WITH C" mindset. The only way Sepples is ever going to be a really strong contender is to dump its unholy marriage with C and fix up the murky and fucked up syntax.

Even Bjarne was like WHY WAS > > EVER A PROBLEM FOR CLOSING MULTIPLE TEMPLATE STATEMENTS^[1]

They're adding constexpr, which has to be the most useless thing ever. They're not clarifying the oh, I don't know, countless cases of static semantics. They should be divorcing C so they can actually do this.
_
¹- http://www.research.att.com/~bs/C++0xFAQ.html#brackets as accessed at 16:03 CST on 08 JUN 09