The democracy quote wasn't meant to be a comment about the governance of the C++ standards committee. It was the "bad, but better than the rest" idea, as well a

The democracy quote wasn't meant to be a comment about the governance of the C++ standards committee. It was the "bad, but better than the rest" idea, as well as the humorous nature of the quote, that I wanted to use to draw a comparison with programming languages. Criticizing C++ based on age has two problems. One is you probably don't have any real data on C++ users, so it's just speculation. Two is it's a logically invalid argument, an ad hominem. If someone were to criticize Rust based on the age of its users that wouldn't be a good argument either. Also, a language being newer doesn't make it inherently better. Bad programming languages are created anew every day. I will take Rust more seriously when it gets widespread adoption in industries where performance and productivity really matter. Take AAA games for example. These projects require squeezing every last bit of performance out of the hardware; toolchain support for a wide range of desktop, console, and mobile systems; $80 million budgets with tight deadlines. Another industry like this is high frequency trading. I'm not saying Rust can't provide these benefits, but the fact that we haven't seen Rust widely adopted in these industries speaks to the effectiveness of C++ for raw speed and getting shit done.