Firstly, let's dismiss this idea that C++ can avoid wasting a single cycle or byte, it doesn't aim for that. It aims for a much lower bar, albeit still a significant achievement - it says you won't do better by hand. It will very occasionally not meet this lower bar because some people like perverse challenges. That ludicrously fast Fizz Buzz implementation (so fast that inter-core CPU bandwidth alters how fast it seems) in raw machine code can't be duplicated in C++ for example. But on real problems with real programmers you won't do better by hand and should stop trying.

OK, so there are limits. Further though the fact that you sometimes want to be able to do something did not require that C++ insist upon you doing that all the time.

There are places where they didn't. HN recently discussed structure layout and padding. You can write a C++ program with explicit structure layout and padding (I think this may not be portable though) which can significantly alter performance - but you don''t have to. If you're OK not worrying about it, C++ won't optimise layout for you (as Rust would) but it also won't ask you questions about alignment and layout, they're just left alone.

But for some things they insist. Manual memory management for example. The language doesn't (in practice) provide garbage collection, so you are responsible for picking up the trash even if you don't care about that problem. Arithmetic is another, even if it's not performance critical for you, C++ insists you need to cope with the vagaries of machine arithmetic anyway and care about things like overflow and Not-a-Number.

And this burden imposes a real cost on programmers which, at the end of the day, means they actually produce slower/ bigger code than they might have.