Comment by throwaway17_17

I really am curious why the article goes with just implementing Templates early. If the question is going back from today (or even 2013 as the year for Bjarne giving the question to his class) why would someone recommend templates when typed polymorphic datatypes constructors are a more sound method for implementing ‘generics’ (also easier to produce sensible error messages)?

Also, why go with constexpr as a replacement (which is not as expressive unless I have badly misunderstood how they work) for pre-processor macros. There have been type-safe and sound implementations of macros, along with explicitly staged computations, since the early 2000’s, why would that not be more preferable?

I think the article is a fun thought exercise, but i think it attempts to stick too closely to what C++ has become in our timeline and ignored better alternatives that if explained and implemented at the outset would result in a language that retained the performance and abstraction characteristics of C++ as it is today but would place it on sound foundation for further evolution as the language adapts to changes in the industry at large.