|I disagree with just using the fact that people have difficulty with doing things in C++ as an argument to say that it shouldn't be a candidate for a language used for web development.|
I don't think anyone made that argument here. I certainly didn't.
What I said was that a) C++ wouldn't be my
first choice for web development, b) I don't care if it's anyone else's choice, and c) C++ shouldn't try to cater to those that don't want to use it. The whole idea of "let's try to get people to come back to C++" is a waste of time and energy.
|I said "need" there because I think it's one of the blanks that should be filled in the standard library.|
Okay, so if the only requirement for inclusion in the standard library is that a particular feature is not currently in it, it follows that the standard library should eventually grow to include all existing libraries everywhere.
In other words, the ultimate objective is that no one will ever need to link to a third party library ever again.
Is that what you're arguing? I suspect not, so I'm afraid I'll need you to define what you mean by "blank" or "gap". Why is web development a "gap" in the standard library and not, say, CUDA development, or video processing, or any other of the niche problem domains where C++ is applicable? Why does web development get special treatment?
|And it's not really even the standards committee's fault if people think C++ is hard. It's our fault as the users.|
You're absolutely right. All the times the standard uses the phrases "undefined behavior" and "unspecified behavior" is my fault. All the pre-C++11 code floating around out there is also my fault (I was quite prolific back then).