I don't know about this. There are a lot of people being paid by their companies to work on the C++ committee and on various compiler teams. The author of the post we're discussing is a member of the committee and this article is an attempt to improve the security situation in C++.
So funding isn't the issue. The issue is that the committee has a firm commitment to never introducing breaking changes. This commitment is so firm that it trumps literally any other interest, like making the language memory safe. That's why the author only suggests non-breaking changes in this article.
Lots of people are going to have opinions on whether this approach is the right one for C++'s long term success, but I think we'll only know in 5-10 years.
So funding isn't the issue. The issue is that the committee has a firm commitment to never introducing breaking changes. This commitment is so firm that it trumps literally any other interest, like making the language memory safe. That's why the author only suggests non-breaking changes in this article.
Lots of people are going to have opinions on whether this approach is the right one for C++'s long term success, but I think we'll only know in 5-10 years.