[jupp0r]

> Importantly, none of these sources show any improvements over time. If we saw meaningful improvements in "modern C++" codebases, I'd be much more willing to accept "modern C++". As it stands, there is no such evidence that "modern C++" provides any demonstrable benefits regarding memory safety.

I don't know of any study comparing memory safety of "modern C++" vs "legacy C++" code. None of the references you provided contains any information about that, so I think it's unfair for you to pretend that it does. From my work over the last years I can tell you that the move from C++98 to C++11 and to a smaller extend the move from C++11 to C++14 has reduced memory corruption bugs by a significant amount. The way we teach C++ to junior engineers is very different to what it was before, a lot of practices that used to lead to unsafe conditions are frowned upon nowadays. It's by no means perfect compared to Rust, but it's definitely not the mess that it's often characterized at when people point to code that would never pass code review nowadays (ie the original article).