> No, it doesn't. I'd say it was due to age and fragmentation; most of the more recent languages have, in effect, a single "vendor" who can coordinate something

> No, it doesn't. I'd say it was due to age and fragmentation; most of the more recent languages have, in effect, a single "vendor" who can coordinate something like that. This is a widely held meme, but I think its flat wrong. The reality is that most C++ project's have a very wide spectrum of types of dependencies and build steps. The history of competing vendors certainly adds to the non-homogeneity, but it isn't the only portion. Even if all of our C and C++ dependencies were built and installed by a common package manager, we would still have dependencies on a variety of packages in Fortran, Python, Bash, Tcl, Verilator, NGSPICE, Octave, and so on. Running the compiler and linker represents only a handful of the many steps in the process. C++'s niche lies at an intersection of performance and complexity. If the project wasn't demanding enough for C++, folks wouldn't pick it in the first place.