[chipdart]

> Or stopped writing C++, I'd consider myself one of these for many use cases I used to use it for.

Some use cases like GUI programming sound like they are better addressed by specialized tech stacks. Nevertheless, either you're talking about greenfield projects or you are hard pressed to find a justification to rewrite a project in another framework. Claiming you stopped writing C++ doesn't fit the bulk of the experience of anyone maintaining C++ projects.

[PathOfEclipse]

My experience maintaining old codebases is that you are just as hard-pressed to find a justification to write code to use new language features, or even to take the time to upgrade the language and compiler version. Most often you just continue writing code in the same style as the rest of the code base using an old version of the language and runtime.

[chipdart]

> My experience maintaining old codebases is that you are just as hard-pressed to find a justification to write code to use new language features, or even to take the time to upgrade the language and compiler version.

That's perfectly fine. You should only pay for what you use.

Your average project, however, consumes dependencies and needs to keep them updated. Just because the code you write doesn't use them that doesn't mean your dependencies don't. So everyone still benefits with each release of C++ even if the are not using fancy features.

[physicsguy]

Yes that's right, what I meant was that for many of the use cases on greenfield projects that I used to use C++ for, I no longer do.

[lallysingh]

Services get split up and some parts rewritten. The parts are often written in new languages.