> They program in whatever subset of C++ their organization allows So, no-one writes C++ except for some organization that tightly controls their work? :-( An

> They program in whatever subset of C++ their organization allows So, no-one writes C++ except for some organization that tightly controls their work? :-( And no large organizations allow for some coding autonomy in writing, say, the insides of libraries and components? > Google's C++ dialect With changing language versions, dialects change. For example, union types: With C++17 you have variants; which are still a bit painful compared to other languages' union types, but are usually an improvement over just using unions and crossing your fingers you've always been careful with them. > side note: this was a giant language fail that foo(f) could be a const reference or a non-const reference and there's no way to know without looking at the declaration C and C++ have a lot of implicit type conversions. It's fair to be against that, but it's not like this specific aspect is a "giant fail" in itself; it makes sense, consistensy-wise. > Facebook's dialect: Those aspects you describe are indeed annoying, but, again - are we talking about recent code? > The depth of knowledge required to create templates that don't behave unexpectedly ... is so large that only specialists should engage in it. I disagree. If you're not obviously careless, your templated types will be reasonably well-behaved.