I don't think there's any such illusion. You do not see, for example, WG21 members who are confident that they understand the entire C++ language (on the contrary they'll often accept corrections about the language from other committee members) and it's not infrequent that a committee member will agree with the statement that C++ is too large and sprawling for any individual to attain such comprehensive understanding. [Today I would guess maybe Sean Baxter, who wrote his own compiler, has the best individual understanding and I believe Sean is not a member of the committee]
Instead WG21 has very clearly (but without ever admitting it and that's important) taken the path of maintaining a legacy language. Even as debate carried on about whether in future C++ could end up like COBOL, the committee has acted exactly as though it is for some years now. Compatibility is King, no price is too high for compatibility, everything must be sacrificed to make that happen and that's how you end up like COBOL.
Three important opportunities to divert and pick other ways forward should be highlighted here. P1863 "ABI: Now or Never" by Titus Winters in 2020; P2137 "Goals and priorities for C++" also in 2020 but with a long list of authors and P1818 "Epochs" from 2019 by Vittorio Romeo.
In all these cases WG21 chose the "hope the problem goes away" path, preferring not only not to address the critical problem highlighted and take a new route forward, but to specifically ignore the problem and press on anyway.
"Hope the problem goes away" is also, quietly, the preferred strategy by WG21 for the safety problem.
There's a reason (albeit a terrible one) to prefer the C++ ISO document's language over the approach of Rust. These are both general purpose languages (I might also write separately in this thread about a non-general purpose language which Google should use more, if I have time) and so must wrestle with Rice's Theorem. Rust's solution is to require the compiler to be conservative. This is very difficult and indeed there are known bugs in the code doing this conservative check in the Rust official compiler. But C++ has a much easier (but IMO fatal) path, it says that's the job of the programmer and when the programmer writes C++ software which is nonsense as a result that's their fault, not the compiler's fault for failing to reject the program.
It would be extremely difficult to explain how a "standards conforming" Rust compiler can correctly accept all the programs Rust's actual compiler accepts and reject all those it rejects without essentially having a black box where the compiler implementation sits. We can explain the purpose of such rules without, but their detailed behaviour not so much.
Take borrow checking. All the easy scoped borrows (which is all that worked in Rust say eight years ago) can be explained without too much trouble, but today a lot fancier (but to a human obviously correct) borrowing will compile, because the checker is smarter - now, how do you express, not in Rust source code but in the English language, all the checks to be performed, and neither miss things out nor unknowingly accept programs a real Rust compiler will reject ?
C++ just needn't do that, in effect the ISO document says. "Don't do borrows that last longer than the thing borrowed, if you do, that's not C++ but your compiler won't notice so the result is arbitrary nonsense"
Instead WG21 has very clearly (but without ever admitting it and that's important) taken the path of maintaining a legacy language. Even as debate carried on about whether in future C++ could end up like COBOL, the committee has acted exactly as though it is for some years now. Compatibility is King, no price is too high for compatibility, everything must be sacrificed to make that happen and that's how you end up like COBOL.
Three important opportunities to divert and pick other ways forward should be highlighted here. P1863 "ABI: Now or Never" by Titus Winters in 2020; P2137 "Goals and priorities for C++" also in 2020 but with a long list of authors and P1818 "Epochs" from 2019 by Vittorio Romeo.
In all these cases WG21 chose the "hope the problem goes away" path, preferring not only not to address the critical problem highlighted and take a new route forward, but to specifically ignore the problem and press on anyway.
"Hope the problem goes away" is also, quietly, the preferred strategy by WG21 for the safety problem.
There's a reason (albeit a terrible one) to prefer the C++ ISO document's language over the approach of Rust. These are both general purpose languages (I might also write separately in this thread about a non-general purpose language which Google should use more, if I have time) and so must wrestle with Rice's Theorem. Rust's solution is to require the compiler to be conservative. This is very difficult and indeed there are known bugs in the code doing this conservative check in the Rust official compiler. But C++ has a much easier (but IMO fatal) path, it says that's the job of the programmer and when the programmer writes C++ software which is nonsense as a result that's their fault, not the compiler's fault for failing to reject the program.
It would be extremely difficult to explain how a "standards conforming" Rust compiler can correctly accept all the programs Rust's actual compiler accepts and reject all those it rejects without essentially having a black box where the compiler implementation sits. We can explain the purpose of such rules without, but their detailed behaviour not so much.
Take borrow checking. All the easy scoped borrows (which is all that worked in Rust say eight years ago) can be explained without too much trouble, but today a lot fancier (but to a human obviously correct) borrowing will compile, because the checker is smarter - now, how do you express, not in Rust source code but in the English language, all the checks to be performed, and neither miss things out nor unknowingly accept programs a real Rust compiler will reject ?
C++ just needn't do that, in effect the ISO document says. "Don't do borrows that last longer than the thing borrowed, if you do, that's not C++ but your compiler won't notice so the result is arbitrary nonsense"