> it's just that in practice the C++ community has always chosen performance over any other concern (https://research.swtch.com/ub https://research.swtch.com/ub

> it's just that in practice the C++ community has always chosen performance over any other concern (https://research.swtch.com/ub https://research.swtch.com/ub). I don't know how much credence to give to this idea. It seems to me this specific this critic always comes from (designer of) languages with very different goal in mind. If you ask a die hard C fan, they will point to things like exceptions handling, constructor and even type conversion as example where C++ is not making design decision purely on performance. It seems that from it's inceptions, modelisation power and type safety where paramount to C++ and it's design, right along performance. In particular here, it hard for me not to read simply in the article you linked that the authors doesn't like the compromise that the C++ committee has chosen... Notthing really objective. > you can't change how a whole community behaves, these articles by Sutter and Stroustrup feel like a Hail Mary play to address the valid concerns raised by multiple organisations around memory safety. Maybe i have a different read of the situation. But we are talking about the same community which produced C++11, introducing both a memory model, thread semantic and lambda functions. And since then have produce pretty significant advance in the language every 3 years. The C++ community is more deliberate in its approach to solving issues, taking longer to make sure that the proposed solution actually address the correct problem. > I think we'll find out in 5 years if their optimism was well founded. True.