What is the rationale for not having static constructor in C++?

Question

What is the rationale for not having static constructor in C++?

If it were allowed, we would be initializing all the static members in it, at one place in a very org

Answer 1

This doesn't really make sense for c++ - classes are not first class objects (like in e.g. java).

A (static|anything) constructor implies something is constructed - and c++ classes aren't constructed, they just are.

You can easily achieve the same effect though:

//.h
struct Foo {
  static std::vector strings;
};
//.cpp
std::vector Foo::strings(createStrings());

IMO there's just no need for one more syntactic way of doing this.