As far as I can tell, the definition of C++ is mostly driven by compiler folks (and wannabes), motivated to add features for their own career benefit and generally doing so in the way that's most convenient for them (e.g. std::move as a pseudo-function instead of as real syntax that the already-insane parser would have to handle). Since only the in-group's interests are considered, the much more numerous regular C++ users are ill served.
For all its faults, there's much less churn in the definition of C and what change does occur seems to be driven by clearly demonstrated needs out in the real world. C might seem stagnant, outdated, incomplete, or unsafe - all fair criticisms - but at least a competent C programmer's hard-won knowledge of how to overcome these deficiencies doesn't get turned on its head every few years as a new language version comes out. Even decades-old C (at least since the K&R vs. ANSI function-declaration change) is still readable and scarcely less idiomatic than something written last week.
So, referring to the OP's title, which language has the bigger problem?
For all its faults, there's much less churn in the definition of C and what change does occur seems to be driven by clearly demonstrated needs out in the real world. C might seem stagnant, outdated, incomplete, or unsafe - all fair criticisms - but at least a competent C programmer's hard-won knowledge of how to overcome these deficiencies doesn't get turned on its head every few years as a new language version comes out. Even decades-old C (at least since the K&R vs. ANSI function-declaration change) is still readable and scarcely less idiomatic than something written last week.
So, referring to the OP's title, which language has the bigger problem?