Great article, no notes. I think you are correct about Stroustrup and want to amplify on that a little bit.

I will add that I'm in my mid-50s and have been programming since childhood and so I've had a chance to observe the evolution of C++ since the not-quite-C++ implementations such as those in THINK C (Object Extensions to C) and TCL (Think Class Library). I've used quite a few C++ frameworks and libraries that existed pre-STL including Borland's OWL 2.0 and the old Turbo Vision framework, as well as the first version of MFC (Microsoft Foundation Classes - I still have nightmares), and later worked extensively with the massively useful and very nicely designed Metrowerks PowerPlant class library. I used to subscribe to the old C++ Report magazine and read them cover-to-cover. The best of these articles are still available if you can track down old copies of the books _C++ Gems_ and _More C++ Gems_. (One of the fascinating things to be learned from those articles is how practitioners discovered that the exception mechanism in C++ really could only _theoretically_ be made to ensure safe and easy error-handling and recovery, but in practice made it impossible, because the total state of the program and its resources had to be considered at every point in the program in which an exception could occur; at one job, I tried unsuccessfully to convince my co-workers not to use exceptions for error-handling in embedded multi-threaded client/server code in vehicle infotainment devices.)

I have owned every edition of Stroustrup's _The C++ Programming Language_ and read his _The Design and Evolution of C++_. I used to buy, print out, and bind, copies of the C and C++ standards so that I could try to answer hard questions about whether compilers were broken, or the code was broken. If I had kept every book I've ever owned on C++ programming, I estimate it would be about 12 feet of shelf space. It is probably a blessing that I have only kept about 2 feet, which now has books on C++17 and C++20 for those times when I have to read some modern C++. At one point (about 1999) I considered myself to be a pretty expert C++ programmer, but because of language churn, those days are gone. (How many times can one re-learn the proper way to write a managed pointer class, or what methods should go into a "standard" kind of class to make it useful and safe? For me, the turning point probably came when I bought a brand new book on STL programming and tried to run the chapter 1 examples. Every compiler I had access to at the time on several platforms crashed when trying to compile the programs, which was a really vivid illustration of just how far the cutting edge was from the reality of working programmers.) I also once went to a talk by Stroustrup on the campus of the University of Michigan, and left frustrated and bored.

Given all that, I don't believe Stroustrup's ever been quite the thinker and visionary that some might think he is. He will not be remembered as a great language designer but more a formalizer, implementer, and promoter of ideas mainly borrowed from other languages and other people. He's certainly not a great writer or a great speaker, as I learned at his talk.

That itself is not my real criticism of him and his work; there are a lot of great ideas in language design to borrow from. My real criticism of him and his work is that along the way he has not been able to maintain a coherent vision of how language features would work together in real programs. To be fair to him, I think a lot of the people behind incredibly useful and active real-world computer languages such as Guido van Rossum and Yukihiro Matsumoto find themselves in similar positions, but Stroustrup seems to have a particular lack of self-awareness of the limits of his contributions and role in the design and evolution of a language which is now an irredeemable mess filled with too many Ph.D. theses. C++'s metastatic growth began with the early incorporation of Stepanov's Standard Template Library, a very nice design that, initially at least, was grafted into a language not well-suited to implement it. And things have continued from there, with massive, widespread adoption, and many successful projects, but insufficient attention paid to the unsuccessful ones. Meanwhile I have watched so many better languages fail to gain momentum. People choosing languages for implementing important pieces of software would be wise to look at the minority reports of the most experienced engineers - for example, see Torvalds' comments on C++ over the years - rather than the propaganda from the language promoters.