There's the language as idealized, and the language as used. Stroustrup is clearly brilliant, but he's talking about the former while everyone else means the latter. If you started a brand new C++ project today, using only the modern, safe ways of doing things and including only dependencies that do the same, OK, fine. That's, what, 0.1% of C++ projects? The rest of them use a soup of features and misfeatures that've been released in the spirit of trying to make everyone happy simultaneously.
I am solidly in the camp that believes C++ is unsafe. With enough discipline and tooling, it is possible to write safe C++. Are there more than a sliver of shops jumping through those hoops?
Of course, there may be a survivorship bias involved that proves me wrong. If it turned out that every remaining C++ shop is great at writing C++ code, because all the shops that weren't gave up and migrated to something else, I wouldn't be shocked.
I am solidly in the camp that believes C++ is unsafe. With enough discipline and tooling, it is possible to write safe C++. Are there more than a sliver of shops jumping through those hoops?
Of course, there may be a survivorship bias involved that proves me wrong. If it turned out that every remaining C++ shop is great at writing C++ code, because all the shops that weren't gave up and migrated to something else, I wouldn't be shocked.