[wizofaus]

> If C++ is so good why does it need to be constantly updated and extended?

You could make that argument about almost any technology (certainly in the IT world). C23 is out this year which will make it the 6th "official" version - obviously a much more slowly evolving language than most, but nonetheless still being fairly regularly "updated and extended".

There's plenty of things I don't care for in C++, but I can (and do) choose not to use those parts. The few times recently I had to work with pure "C" code felt, well, decidedly primitive - but there was no choice but to grin and bear it. Which works great for some contexts, but I'm not sure I can imagine tolerating it for large-scale application development.

[memefrog]

C23 is a bad standard with a massive pile of misfeatures. The only reason there even is a C23 is that a bunch of C++ people have infiltrated the committee in an attempt to force changes into C23. For example, the guy whose website is 'thephd.dev' is a self-proclaimed Rust fanatic who wants to see the death of C. He is also on the committee in a leadership position. The C committee.

The problem is that it's a language that doesn't need to change much. It doesn't really need a committee. People that recognise this don't bother getting involved. That leaves it vulnerable to entryists.

You cannot pick and choose which C++ features to use in practice if you use any kind of library including the standard library.