“Because incremental improvements don't provide enough value. A stable C++ codebase is best left untouched.”
That was most of your original comment and it remains wrong.
Now you’re talking about specific memory-safety-related features, but you’re making a big assumption. Not everything has to look like Rust. Goodness no! And C++ is still improving in that area too.
“An incremental language change would be to adopt a Rust-like iterator.”
One of many possibilities.
“That would be a small language change, but a migration away from begin/end would be a massive churn for C++ codebases that sounds more ridiculous than rewriting in Rust.”
Obviously not. Nowadays maybe it could be easily done with AI, even if a Rust-like iterator is not necessarily something that C++ programmers would want.
That was most of your original comment and it remains wrong.
Now you’re talking about specific memory-safety-related features, but you’re making a big assumption. Not everything has to look like Rust. Goodness no! And C++ is still improving in that area too.
“An incremental language change would be to adopt a Rust-like iterator.” One of many possibilities.
“That would be a small language change, but a migration away from begin/end would be a massive churn for C++ codebases that sounds more ridiculous than rewriting in Rust.” Obviously not. Nowadays maybe it could be easily done with AI, even if a Rust-like iterator is not necessarily something that C++ programmers would want.