[cpp-threads] C++ committee meeting in Mont Tremblant

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

> We are suppose to be the experts. If we take a strong stand on high-level
> concurrency, the standards committee will listen. If we suggest the status quo,
> the committee will hear that, too. So what's it going to be boy, yes or no?

Oui :o).

I think there's a tad of misunderstanding in here, caused by the fact 
that C++ is unusual in a particular way.

Unlike most languages, of which parsers are just a tiny part of the 
processing chain, C++ has a horrendously big complicated syntax. That 
creates problems so wicked, that people who haven't actually tackled 
them can hardly imagine them.

As a consequence, people in the committee and toolchain writers do NOT 
want to change the syntax of C++, even in the simplest ways, for the 
simple reasons that touching the parser and perhaps even the formal 
grammar would be a big undertaking.

When they resist to "changing the language" and prefer "library-based 
solutions", most people (some even without realizing it) are really 
thinking "changing the syntax of the language" and prefer "solutions 
that look like library-based". See what I mean? If you give them a 
concurrency model wrapped in a syntax that looks like invoking functions 
and instantiating objects, everybody will like them, even though the 
semantics are "magic" that couldn't be achieved solely via a library.

Makes sense?


Andrei