The article very specifically states "very high levels" That has two effects: 1) Given how ineffective the hiring process is at selecting skill, they would ne

The article very specifically states "very high levels" That has two effects: 1) Given how ineffective the hiring process is at selecting skill, they would never hire even Bjarne Stroustrup. Average to incompetent people trying to select "very high level" people usually get scammed by the most imaginative resume bandits. 2) Programming languages are not as fixed as spoken languages, and "very high level" people are making more money in other languages, or less tedious languages. The article also uses language like "programmers" in a generic sense but the site is specifically for the financial services career field as are all the quotes. I've worked in financial services and the highly skilled people who can learn anything would never learn C++ because it doesn't pay nearly as well as, well, anything else in financial services IT departments. Someone made a huge architectural error in designing a system requiring the highest level C++ programmers but never telling HR to pay them enough to find any. If I were still doing financial services work I'd never learn C++, that would be dumb, I'll make a lot more money learning... anything else in that industry, or learning skills that transfer out of the industry. The article also mentions automotive, another example of a giant slow moving industry that underpays and over-Dilberts its C++ programmers. What I enjoyed about my time in financial services is they understood their money depends on generous IT spending, they understood the value of documentation and code review, and it was a stable industry. Not perfect in an absolute sense but "more so relative to other industries". I would have to think for awhile if those values fit the C++ community. My immediate guess is "no" but I'm not certain, everyone liked the generous budget but the constant review and oversight was often a little excessive.