> Are we forever going to be stuck with every company trying to reduce complexity by defining their own custom subset of C++? Yes, probably? In 30 years of pro

> Are we forever going to be stuck with every company trying to reduce complexity by defining their own custom subset of C++? Yes, probably? In 30 years of professional coding and a decade of game engine development, I’ve never seen that not be the case, all the companies I’ve been at and all the companies I know about limit their C++ to a subset to try to control complexity. I’m curious if you’re suggesting it would be better to increase complexity by allowing all of C++? There are definitely features I don’t trust everyone with. Complexity combined with engineer hubris is one of the big problems with C++. While working in games, I witnessed many people overengineering and being too clever by half, and costing the team time and money. One of the most memorable bugs I ever tracked down while working in games was a release-build only crash where a programmer had tried to get fancy with a copy constructor and bungled it unknowingly. We had a team of 10 people working over a weekend trying to catch it and I had to write a custom debugger to trap the call stack. The cost of his trickery was easily in the several tens of thousands of dollars at least. It only takes that happening a few times before you realize C++ is a foot-gun in many (most? all?) hands.