>> > given that greenfield software tends to be written in Rust... >> You are terribly mistaken again.

True, but I sure hope that changes sooner than later. The top comment here echoes my sentiment about what C++ has become, while another one illustrates how cleanly the example can be done in Python and Rust. The problem as I see it is that long time C++ developers have learned all this arcane BS right along with its development. Anyone new to a language will vomit when they try C++ compared to Python or Rust. The C++ language developers are probably the least able to see what the problem is in this regard.

On a slight tangent, IMHO this approach to language development is at the heart of the issue that lead Guido to step down as Python lead. One of the proposals that got accepted crossed the line between readable code and "this is a compact way to do this but isn't intuitive on its face".

I learned c++ fresh two years ago. While I enjoyed learning python, I had the vomitous reaction to rust, not c++. In fact, I find modern c++ to be quite similar to python for many problems.

Do you have a link to share about that proposal? As a Python fan I'm very curious.

I assume they’re referring to PEP 572 (assignment expressions)