> I approve of the current C++ trajectory But this isn't one thing. Part of the problem is contradictions even in the definition of this trajectory. An importa

> I approve of the current C++ trajectory But this isn't one thing. Part of the problem is contradictions even in the definition of this trajectory. An important example: Will it be "you don't pay for what you don't use", or will it be "stable ABI"? There are adopted papers which say both - as the linked article indicates. > please just consider another language, e.g. Rust I'm not one of those people necessarily, but - Rust has its own set of design goals and problems. It is legitimate to want C++ to go one way rather than another. > To Rust advocates, you can have the US government and big tech. Now you are kind of contradicting yourself, because wide applicability is definitely a goal for C++.