> The article isn't claiming there is a "one true modern subset" of C++ that they use. They’re arguing that they’ve found a sufficiently safe subset, which if

> The article isn't claiming there is a "one true modern subset" of C++ that they use. They’re arguing that they’ve found a sufficiently safe subset, which if true would be the first. It would be a waste of time to relitigate the many programmer-hostile, unsafe decisions the committee has made over the years. I think your programmers who are supposed to “understand and have control over” C++’s arsenal of footguns are more or less fictional and a language designer shouldn’t take them as intended audience. https://robert.ocallahan.org/2017/07/confession-of-cc-programmer.html https://robert.ocallahan.org/2017/07/confession-of-cc-progra... (2017) > Also, I believe the C++ standards committee does care about this, which is why Profiles [1] are being considered. It was discussed at length why this proposal is insufficient: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45234460 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45234460