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

You could get by with putting your "static" members in their own class with their own constructor that performs their initialization:

class StaticData
{
    int some_integer;
    std::vector strings;

public:
    StaticData()
    {
       some_integer = 100;
       strings.push_back("stack");
       strings.push_back("overflow");
    }
}

class sample
{    
    static StaticData data;

public:
    sample()
    {

    }
};

Your static data member is guaranteed to be initialized before you first try to access it. (Probably before main but not necessarily)