I wonder if a feature has been accepted that turned out to not be tractably implementable!
I work on Ruby compilers and people often suggest features that they don’t realise would be catastrophic for performance if implemented, or are sometimes literally impossible to implement.
I'm pretty sure this rethoric is fallacious, most VMs/languages are not GPL and have MIT-like licenses and yet do not have the issue.
It's just that clang lack human resources. Compagnies are not really secretly maintaining their own fork of clang with full support for modern c++. It's not in their economic interest to have to fo all tjis engineering.
Instead of malice it'd just plain mediocrity. Yes there are trillion dollars companies that would benefit from better c++ but either they use GCC, either they fail to understand that clang needs funding by pure and quite universal mediocrity.
Also the thing is, most languages do not afford to have multiple serious implementations because it is economically absurd, it divide progress by 2 and duplicate the bug surface by 2. GCC at least for the foreseeable future is the de facto C++ implementation.
> people often suggest features that they don’t realise would be catastrophic for performance if implemented, or are sometimes literally impossible to implement.
