> Then why aren't we programming everything in assembly?
Half joking, Half serious: Who says we're not?
Aside, because a developer's time costs more then the CPU's time -- THAT is why we use higher level languages. It comes down to price. We trade quality for iteration time. Most businesses can't _afford_ to justify writing in assembly. It is far cheaper to just hire a few recent college grads and have them bang out code in the latest iHipster language. High Level language are good enough.
/sarcasm Who cares how inefficient & bloated the code is we can "solve" the 80% of the problem. Who cares if it takes 4 GB of RAM to run and 2 minutes to startup!? This mentality of apathy "I don't care about the user's experience" is why we have crap like computers being 1,000 time faster but tasks still take longer!
> The world indeed doesn't need another rehash of C++ or Lisp:
Sooo when is C++ going to modules?? You know, something every other modern language has had for, you know, decades. Why do you have to copy/paste a function definition header to forward declare it when the compiler could do this automatically??
When you have idiots on the C++ design committee -- a native binary literal took DECADES to add, "A Proposal to Add 2D Graphics Rendering and Display to C++", etc. I would argue it certainly does. That's why we have D, etc.
Every year C++ piles on more and more crap. It needs a simplification, not more over-engineering.
As someone who has worked on a PS3 C++ compiler there are two jokes amongst compiler writers:
There are 2 things wrong with C++.
1. It's design,
2. It's implementation