[tjoff]

I don't disagree, but these are in the ~2% convenience at most. With the huge baggage of including C++ in a project. The cost of learning C++ easily outweighs all those benefits. If you happen to have a proficient C++ team (that actually know embedded), go for it!

[AlotOfReading]

Speaking more broadly than just the std implementation, but result types like optional shouldn't be a 2% convenience, they should be used in most function calls that return errors. Rust is the obvious example here.

[tjoff]

If you argue for Rust I'm all for it, arguably much less of a learning curve than C++ too.

[Ragnarork]

Strong disagree on that one. Even though C++ has a lot of features that take a while to learn, getting started with C++ is simpler by miles than getting started with Rust.

One exception to that in my experience: dependencies, although I think that's a bit deceiving as yes, it's easier to get dependencies in Rust but in some areas they're way less mature and can sometimes be a pain to work with (usually when dealing with big C or C++ libraries that have been quickly glued to a Rust interface to be available in Rust).

[tjoff]

Agree, writing bad C++ is easy. But being competent in C++ requires much more than being competent in rust.

And not being competent in C++ is not great. You are going to be much more productive in C. The feedback loop is much faster, that is, feedback from your designs.

Contrast with Rust which is harder to get going but doesn't require nearly as much to be decent.