but maybe thats how we'll finally get rid of c++.
I mean, this is kind of why C++ is successful. It's a toolbox that'll do anything and you can write high level or low level code.
> but maybe thats how we'll finally get rid of c++
Lol we're never getting rid of it. There's too much C++ software and will Rust replace it all? Probably not.
More Seriously: You shouldn't believe any of this nonsense about how we're permanently locked in to something that's less than a century old. There are plenty of people still alive today who were born in a world that not only didn't have C++ it didn't have programmable computers at all.
But it only took ~4 "deciders" to kill Flash regardless of what anyone else wanted, which was Apple, Microsoft, Google, and Mozilla (and eventually Adobe decided it didn't care about Flash anymore either). Nobody so centrally "owns" C++ such that there could be a concerted deprecation effort that anyone would actually care to listen to & respect. Even if the C++ committee itself decided to kill C++, and got G++, MSVC, and Clang on board, which is extremely unlikely, would anyone even care that much or just keep using the last release of the compilers with support until the end of time? Kinda like they do for FORTRAN. And COBOL. And etc...
The issue is each codebase has its own DSL?
That is pretty close to the case with all non-C++ langs: industry settles on a handful of frameworks which are syntactically similar but each has their own gotchas.
It's not "an issue", it's in my opinion the very best development methodology there is: develop eDSLs for every sub-problems in the system
even then what does it mean to "know c++"? Do you mean the spec? Specific implementations?
IMHO the language and implementation have been far from simple for almost a decade now. I don't think that's necessarily a negative though.
I feel like you didn't read your own comment here. What you've described is a world that is littered with so many c++ variants, it will be impossible to eradicate them.