[goodcanadian]

I don't know how to answer that. For me, it is 100%, but it is a small sample size and one where I, in part, set the standard.

If you have a C++11 code base, you don't really lose anything by adopting C++17, and you do gain a few things.

[pizza234]

Interesting; I've always mistakenly assumed that C++ codebases working with different standards would necessarily end up being a patchwork.

[johannes1234321]

If you combine larger libraries from pre-eleven with post-eleven libraries you will see the different worlds (Qt as a prime example), small libraries can easily be enhanced with smart pointers etc. so do you don't have much of a clash. After eleven most features are nice things, which make things a bit nicer here or there, but don't change the code as much as reliance on moves and smart pointers do with eleven. Also upgrade from C++11 to C++17 is as painless as a compiler update can be. (Meaning: in some corner case you will probably hit some compiler optimization caused issue, but for most code it's a non-issue)

[goodcanadian]

I'm sure someone will come up with a counterexample, but my experience is that pretty much everything is backwards compatible.

[bregma]

C++17 was backwards compatible with the venerable C++11 in almost all ways except for the removal of some library constructs few people actually use and have long been replaced by superior models, like `std::auto_ptr` and the old binder functors.