One of replies to the comment was that C++11 was what the commenter wanted, whereupon the commenter mentioned ways it did not meet the criteria. If you follow

One of replies to the comment was that C++11 was what the commenter wanted, whereupon the commenter mentioned ways it did not meet the criteria. If you follow the C++ development, you can see a huge effort to make it support more funcational paradigms (see for example the efforts for structural pattern matching). However, its backward compatibility requirements have limited it a lot. So even if Rust was C++++ without the backward compatibility baggage it could easily reach these ideals.