My point was that you should just use old-school C++ if you need to use C++. If your desire is to use fancy language features, and that is your primary focus, t

My point was that you should just use old-school C++ if you need to use C++. If your desire is to use fancy language features, and that is your primary focus, then you should switch language. People should just accept that they work with a legacy language and not try to turn C++ into Haskell, Rust or something it isn't. They just turn it into a worse mess than it already is. Most C++ code that exists and which is useful is written in old school C++ anyway and could be continued to be maintained that way and wrapped for other users. And really C++ performance is IMHO somewhat overrated. It depends entirely on what you are doing. I think it was the CouchDB creator. He made his first version in C++. He struggled hard. Then he switched to Erlang, despite Erlang running on a VM he got magnitudes higher performance and had to write less than half the code. You know the ones who squeezed the most performance out of the Playstation 2 did it using LISP and not C++. They used LISP to create a DSL for PS2 assembly code. Thus they could do high level LISP coding as well as low level assembly all in one. And today you got many scientists needing high performance computing switching to Julia. Fortran will usually outperform C++ on number crunching. And there are quite a number of cases where Julia will outperform Fortran. Yes in real time systems with tight memory requirements something like Julia is not a good choice. But then again in those cause you may actually want to prefer C or Rust.