The hard problems are always people problems. If they changed the layout of my data, I couldn't use that compiler, since I really do rely on my data being in a

The hard problems are always people problems. If they changed the layout of my data, I couldn't use that compiler, since I really do rely on my data being in a specific order. I know what fields in my struct are hot, and what are cold, and a compiler really can't figure that out for me. That would also break every existing ABI out there. Maybe you'd add a struct to say "make this data ABI-compliant" but then everything would get that tag. Standard libraries can't be great. They have to be safe, conservative and generic by default. std::vector<bool> is a classic example of what happens when a standard library tries to become too clever with optimization, and ends up screwing itself for an eternity. C++ is too far gone to introduce good allocation patterns for its core data structures. A custom solution can be tailor-made by knowing what works well together. I could spend 5,000 hours trying to get basic features through the C++ committee, or I could just write my own in half an hour. The idea that effort should always go to the compilers and standard library is countered by 20 years of complete nothing on any of those fronts (std::unordered_map still sucks), half-baked libraries like <random> making it into the standard, and compilers not even getting remotely better for things like SIMD, instead choosing to focus on more random undefined behavior passages to exploit.