A subset of C++ cannot simultaneously be secure and useful, because to be secure a subset would need to ban pointers, references, iterators, moves and the abili

A subset of C++ cannot simultaneously be secure and useful, because to be secure a subset would need to ban pointers, references, iterators, moves and the ability to include code that is not part of this subset (for the last point modules might help, but they aren't here and they introduce their own ODR violations cases, so "safe" is a stretch even for them). To retain usefulness, we need a superset of C++ that would include either a GC (at which point, why use C++), or lifetime-like annotations, and the need to actively migrate the ecosystem to it. At which point what you have is a rust-shaped language with an outdated compilation model, tons of pitfalls, an inexpressive type system, and a slightly better interop with C++. Considering that such a language doesn't exist, that which features to remove and which to add will be source for endless discussions, I'd say that the move that isn't overkill is to use the language that actually exists today and delivers on these promises. Rust isn't overkill, despite 10-years of C++ experience I'm way more productive in Rust, be it while writing code, fetching dependencies, reviewing code, and of course all of this compounds during maintenance. You do need to invest 3 months to learn the language, and some more to write the occasional bindings, but they will be very quickly recovered by avoiding writing CMake (not even counting asan/valgrind debugging sessions).