The C++11 Standard Library Additions

Many learners picture a programming language standard as a document written in one focused effort, given a release year, and then simply published. Under that picture, a project that begins in one year should finish within a predictable and fairly short window. This article tests that belief against the history of C++ standardization, because the history shows a different pattern.

A language standard does not reliably finish on the schedule its early planning suggests. The source explicitly notes that overly optimistic completion dates are common in large projects. In the C++ case, the revision was set a completion date during its development period, and that date was too optimistic.

The standardization history can be read as an ordered list of dated events. It starts with the 1998 ISO C++ standard. In 2002, work on a revised standard began, and the colloquial name for that revision was C++0x. In 2003, a bug fix revision of the ISO C++ standard was issued. In 2006, an ISO C++ Technical Report on Performance was issued. Later, C++11 was formally approved in 2011. In 2012, work on future ISO C++ standards, referred to as C++14 and C++17, started. In 2013, the first complete C++11 implementations emerged.

C++0x and C++11 are not two separate languages that happen to be related. C++0x was the colloquial working name used while the revised standard was being developed, beginning in 2002. Once the standard was formally approved in 2011, the final name became C++11. The development name and the final name therefore refer to the same effort, viewed at two different stages.

The standardization history includes more than the revised standard itself. Technical Reports are separate outputs connected to the standardization work. They address specific concerns or introduce specific pieces of work, and they are not the revised standard itself. The two Technical Reports named in the source show two different roles.

The diagram groups the outputs by kind. The full revised standard is the main result. Technical Reports sit alongside it as separate outputs, and the source describes them as lighter-weight routes for particular work. Because the 2003 report's components were later absorbed into C++0x, that report came first and fed into the revision.

Revisions are easier to keep straight when you compare what the source actually records about each one. The table lists only the facts the source gives, so you can see where the record is detailed and where it is silent.