> As an engineer, I use judgement to make context-dependent trade offs.

Well said.

This is why i am firmly in the Stroustrup camp of backward compatibility/zero overhead/better-C/etc. goodness of "old C++". I need to extend/maintain/rewrite tons of them and that needs to be as painless as possible. The current standards trajectory needs to be maintained.

The OP article is a rather poor one with no insights but mere hoopla over nothing.

▲

munchler 7 months ago | parent [-]

If it's hoopla over nothing, why do you firmly identify with one of the factions defined by the article?

	▲	rramadass 7 months ago \| parent [-]
		What a silly question! There is no major schism in the C++ community as the article implies; merely a strong difference of opinion on certain proposals. This is normal in any committee. But since people are strongly wedded to their own proposals it might seem more severe than it actually is.