[acqq]

> most projects in the wild nowadays are C++11 or later

Which means either that their codebase is less than a decade old, or there were serious rewrites involved. Which fits my initial statement: historically, long term (T > 10 years), successful projects should have better used C++ as C-like as possible (or just used C).

I'm not claiming it's not possible to have successful projects using C++ lasting long, just that it would be, long-term (really long term), less overhead to use C for big projects.

Êdit: My personal bias: I was involved in two long-lasting projects, where just dealing with boost dependencies used up more maintenance time than it would have been needed for experienced developers to develop the code which didn't depend on boost. But of course, those who used boost didn't have such an experience to make such calls, and in initial development "look how fast we have a feature x" wins.

I personally consider Google's C++ style guide limiting Boost use as one of the best examples of some influence of some experienced developers on the policies.

[jcelerier]

> or there were serious rewrites involved

why do you assume that ? if someone was using, say, "Modern C++ Design: Generic Programming and Design Patterns Applied" from Alexandrescu (released in 2001!) as a guideline when writing one's codebase, "migration" to C++11 is maybe replacing some custom types by std ones for stuff like mutexes and threads, etc. but all the architecture would stay pretty similar.

> Which fits my initial statement

I really don't see how - all those projects I listed are successful, you seem to be saying that it is despite of C++ but I don't see any argument towards that. I personally don't know anyone who would willingly go back to writing large-scale projects in C after working in C++.