Wow, I always suspected that our industry was rife with narcissism (I'm a cynic by nature), but these results are astonishing.

... until you start relying on it. Then Google will shut it down. No way I'm using any more Google products except the one I pay for (mail).

The word you're looking for is 'ecumenism'. :)

You can build cons-lists or other initial-algebraic data-types with them very nicely. I <3 them.

Need a conjunction option: with my 3.0 & go from a state school I'd never be hired there, but conversely, until they start putting all that brainpower to work doing something besides freeloading on their search/advertising guys, I'll pass. Every time I see an announcement from them, it's yet another project masquerading as a product....

Add fexprs and a system F-based type system to lisp/scheme, and I might just go there...

My dad is a nuke engineer (studied under Rickover) who hires bomb designers -- he maintains that the physics behind building a bomb is simple and easy, and far from classified. What distinguishes the really scary weapons from home-brew isn't the science behind it, but all the engineering tweaks that optimize the results. Given his background and Q clearance in DOE, even if he wasn't my dad, I'd be inclined to believe him....

I agree that the article's not too great -- I think that the big bang-for-the-buck for most of these features (except closures) will do is make for much cleaner, more streamlined library support that'll make day to day "hey this module's terribly boring but it needs to be written" code much nicer.

Addition of closures, on the other hand, will make C++ a viable back-end target for a lot of cool language hackery. :o)

I just now created an account here just now so I'd have the opportunity to tell y'all that Oleg's a freakin' god. He's up there with sigpfe, Wadler & Peyton-Jones -- he's one of those cures for hubris we're lucky to have around....