You just said, 'I had a whole bunch of problems', and that's why I believe the standard should change more slowly.
You didn't actually say what those problems were, you didn't provide any evidence that any bugs you hit were as a result of an increased standardization rate.
You're also assuming that somehow spending more time with unstable language features will result in fewer problems, which is something where we know you're wrong. Because we've seen what happens when a longer cycle exists, we know your claim that the compilers will be less buggy is exactly wrong.
> you didn't provide any evidence that any bugs you hit were as a result of an increased standardization rate.
You misunderstood the argument. The claim was not that the VS problems were due to the increased standardization rate. They weren't C++-related at all. Rather, the problem was that I couldn't move onto 2017 due to unrelated VS problems, even though I needed to move onto it in order to be able to work on C++ projects that had already started using C++17.
> You're also assuming that somehow spending more time with unstable language features will result in fewer problems, which is something where we know you're wrong. Because we've seen what happens when a longer cycle exists, we know your claim that the compilers will be less buggy is exactly wrong.
Again, I was not saying compiler bugs increase when you rush the standard. See above.
Huh? What would that accomplish for you?
You just said, 'I had a whole bunch of problems', and that's why I believe the standard should change more slowly.
You didn't actually say what those problems were, you didn't provide any evidence that any bugs you hit were as a result of an increased standardization rate.
You're also assuming that somehow spending more time with unstable language features will result in fewer problems, which is something where we know you're wrong. Because we've seen what happens when a longer cycle exists, we know your claim that the compilers will be less buggy is exactly wrong.
> you didn't provide any evidence that any bugs you hit were as a result of an increased standardization rate.
You misunderstood the argument. The claim was not that the VS problems were due to the increased standardization rate. They weren't C++-related at all. Rather, the problem was that I couldn't move onto 2017 due to unrelated VS problems, even though I needed to move onto it in order to be able to work on C++ projects that had already started using C++17.
> You're also assuming that somehow spending more time with unstable language features will result in fewer problems, which is something where we know you're wrong. Because we've seen what happens when a longer cycle exists, we know your claim that the compilers will be less buggy is exactly wrong.
Again, I was not saying compiler bugs increase when you rush the standard. See above.