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

Static implies a function that is disassociated with an object. Since only objects are constructed, it is not apparent why a static constructor would have any benefit.

You can always hold an object in a static scope which has been constructed in a static block, but the constructor you would use would still be declared as non-static. There's no rule that indicates you can't call a non-static method from a static scope.

Finally, C++ / C defines the start of a program to be when the main function is entered. Static blocks are called prior to the entry of the main function as part of setting up the "environment" of the evaluated code. If your environment dictates full control over the set-up and tear-down, then it's easy to argue that it's not really some environmental fixture as much as an inherit procedural component of the program. I know that the last bit is sort of code-philosophy (and that it's rationale could be interpreted differently), but one shouldn't put critical code "before" the official start of an executable's handing off "full control" to the code written by the programmer.