Why C++ does not move to a 'unversioned model' like HTML/HTML5? [closed]

It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, visit the help center. Closed 12 years ago.

First, i must say that i write this from the bottom of my dark, envious heart:

After reading this: http://blog.whatwg.org/html-is-the-new-html5

i wonder, what is up that C++ has become so fosilized that they will take 10 years to get a new standard.

I mean, embedded/ancient platforms don't even notice when a new release of the C++ standard come up because guess what? they are constrained by the platform and compiler vendors, so they for the most part, won't be able to take advantage of the ne开发者_JS百科w features anyway. So all this weight dragging seems more self-immolation than desire or respect for backward compatibility and such and such

---

i wonder, what is up that C++ has become so fosilized that they will take 10 years to get a new standard.

Wait. How long did it take for HTML to get a new standard, again?

The cases of HTML5 and C++0x are very near parallels. Both take ages to get formalized (both not there, yet), as a consequence both could legally be qualified as vaporware.

But in both cases, nobody cares: the upcoming standards are already mostly implemented in modern browsers/compilers.

So what exactly are you complaining about?

---

Beyond @Konrad's answer, C++ is an ISO standard, and therefore has to deal with all the bureaucratic stuff that all ISO standards require. That takes time. HTML is not an ISO standard, and therefore has a much easier time creating a new standard.