C++ gives you a garage full of tools and lets you decide what to do with them. Ultimately, it does this because the years have shown that different people need different tools for different use cases. Few people need or use them all at once. But when you do need a specific tool, C++ has it ready for you. Some consider that a con, I consider that a pro.

I find that a lot of the newlangs take the view that since most programming only uses 20% of the toolkit, they can just dispense with the remaining 80%. Which is great, until you discover that virtually every sophisticated project needed one of those things from that remaining 80%, and they all needed a different one. A nice language for writing 'Hello world's isn't going to cut it. And so either the language insists on its simplicity and stagnates, or it just reinvents all the complexity of C++.

At which point, you were better off just taking the garage full of tools that you already had, rather than going all in on some newlang, getting blocked, and stalking a github ticket for years waiting for the lang to get that feature you need. (If you spent the time in C++ instead, its full garage wouldn't look so imposing over time!)

What's the famous quote? 'There are only two kinds of languages: the ones people complain about and the ones nobody uses.' :P

Re generics, aren't C++'s virtually the same as Rust's? Especially now that C++ has 'concepts'?