STL has been wildly successful and has pretty much completely changed the way libraries are designed not just in C++ but also in in other languages. Most mainstream languages have added facilities to write generic code.

When designing and proposing STL for inclusion into the standard, did you expect it to be this successful? Why do you think it has been this successful?

STL was a pretty radical departure from the way classes and libraries were designed pre-STL. I am very keen to know a bit about the history of STL’s inclusion into the standard.

When you originally proposed STL for adoption into the C ++ standard, how receptive / enthusiastic was the C++ committee towards STL? What design decisions / compromises did you have to make to get it accepted? How much resistance did you face?

For example, you have noted that it took a major effort to convince the committee that vector must be contiguous. Was such instances common?

STL is actually object-based, rather than object oriented. STL uses classes for encapsulation, but doesn't really use inheritance, and and definitely doesn't use virtual functions, which is what classically means object-oriented. Whatever inheritance is used are more for refinement of concepts rather than object oriented programming.

There is absolutely no difference between an interface and an abstract class with all virtual functions, no default implementations and no data members. Multiple inheritance is strictly a superset of interface inheritance.

Besides, unless you need to store the base class pointer in an array, you will in most cases be better off using templates instead of inheritance anyways :)

The best way MS can increase the number of apps available on their platform is to allow Sideloading. Right now the biggest problem for a hobbyist developer is not the lack of dev tools (VS is one of the best dev platforms), but the fact that I cannot run an app I make on my phone without paying MS an annual fee.

Allow hobbyists to write and run apps on their phones, and they might create something which they feel can be sold on the app store, at which point you can start charging them for a dev license. But not many hobbyists will pay upfront to tinker with their phones which they already own.

Basically, make it easy for people to run apps on Windows phone, and you will automatically increase the number of available apps.

I am actually glad the Surface RT failed. I also wish the Windows Phone to fail, even though I own a Lumia and find it much better than similarly priced Android phones. I hate that I cannot write or run my own programs on a machine I own without paying MS 100 USD per year. That's beyond stupid.

MS has probably the best dev tools in the industry; they even give it away for free. But if you want to actually run the program you wrote using these tools, you have to pay. What's the logic in that ?!

I actually like the hardware, both RT and the Lumia. I just hate the walled garden crap. Let us write code for our own machines and you will definitely make a lot more sells.

Besides, anybody who is okay with a walled garden already owns an iPad.

Fundamentally, a currency is backed by the resources of a country. The US Dollar is backed by the US GDP, the CNY by Chinese GDP, and so on. If US GDP increases, your USDs go up in value. Bitcoin however is backed by nothing. It has no intrinsic value per se, unlike currencies or stocks. It is valuable only because others think it is valuable. If tomorrow everybody thinks 1 Bitcoin is worth 100 USD, they are worth 100 USD. If everybody thinks they are worthless, they are worthless. It is the ultimate derivative, whose worth is derived from people’s perception of its value. Bitcoin is entirely unlike any currency or stock or bond known so far. The closest I can think of is precious metals.

However it is also unlike precious metals. Precious metals have a strong consumption demand. Gold for example has several industrial uses in addition to its demand in jewellery. Bitcoins have no intrinsic demand. Just limiting the supply of Bitcoins does nothing, as they have no intrinsic value. It is meaningless to talk about deflation or inflation of Bitcoins because nothing is produced in terms of Bitcoins.

Basically, Bitcoin is the ultimate fiat currency, whose value exists only because other people find it valuable. That makes Bitcoin an asset bubble. Forget stock market bubble, forget real estate bubble, at least those assets produced something of value. Bitcoin has no utility. It is the ultimate bubble since the Dutch tulip bubble. And one thing common to all bubbles is that they burst.

Opera is the best browser out there. I don't trust Chrome not to report data about me to Google, and if Facebook buys Opera I wouldn't trust it not to report my browsing data to Facebook. I will have to move back to the mess that is Firefox

Assume this year there is a stock market bubble, and I pay a huge tax this year. Next year there is a stock market crash, and I lose all my previous years gain. So what happens ? Government refunds me my tax ? What about interest on that tax ? Government pays it too ?

Next problem, how do I pay this tax ? If my money is tied up in investments, how do I generate the cash to pay my tax ? Should we start paying our taxes using equity shares ?

Modern imperative languages are constantly adding elements from functional languages. For example, take C++ templates - template metaprogramming is a pure functional style of programming. C++ 1x has added lambdas. Also things like STL algorithms such as accumulate and for_each or boost::bind - are essentially functional programming. C++ 1x was to have concepts which was removed but will hopefully return in the next standard. C# has added async and await. So your "masses" cannot avoid functional programming - they will be forced to learn it - since all imperative languages are going in that direction.

The advent of multicore programming will force this issue. Functional programs are much easier to execute in parallel. C++ has Microsoft PPL or Intel Threads libraries which are essentially functional algorithms. parallel_for with a lambda is one of the most useful parallel programming techniques. The equivalent imperative program will be far more verbose and cumbersome.

I actually believe C++ with the addition of Concepts and pure functions will make a very useful functional language. Yes it will be much more verbose than Haskell. Everything is. But then we will be able to use imperative style where required and functional style everywhere else. The functional parts can be easily parallelized. They can throw exceptions with impunity. Of course, there are some issues as to what constitutes "pure objects" and how to work around C++'s lack of a garbage collector. However people are already working on it. I believe Andrei Alexandrescu was working on something similar for D, which may be adopted to C++.

F# is essentially OCaml for .Net, so you get the full access to the .Net library. Also the best thing about F#, in my opinion, is since it is a .Net language, you can mix and match it with C#. So you can use functional approach for most part of your program, yet drop to C# when you require.

Both his criticisms make no sense. Regarding his first (remaining 50% of the bar is taken up by buttons that nobody will ever use) - the space is already there. Do you want to use the space to put some useful commands, or do you leave it blank ? Obviously my choice would be to add some useful command. Empty space serves nothing.

The second criticism is even more nonsense. MS is not taking away the context menu or the hotkey - in fact if you read the blog, they are adding more shortcuts. They are only combining the command bar and menu bar into one and making it more prominent. Whats the harm in that ? It even has more vertical space!