g-fu ¹, a Lisp dialect in Go, is a marvel. Other languages you've been creating (gfoo, cfoo, lila) are tastefully done too.
So I'm in total agreement with you about the monstrosity that is modern C++. Nobody would have designed such a language from scratch.
It seems to be a common fate of popular and long-lived languages (or projects, companies even), that it grows into a complicated monster that would horrify its original creator.
The biggest issue with g-fu is that it currently expands macros on evaluation. What can I say, it was the first time I implemented quasi-quoting which twisted my brain in exotic ways. That's also why it's so close to Lisp, because it's the only decent macro system I have experience from.
g-foo is definitely a cleaner design, but more Forth than Lisp which may not be everyone's cup.
Agreed, and Bjarne said so himself; that there's a cleaner, more consistent language hidden deep inside C++. C compatibility has been a blessing and a curse. I think Stepanov is a better designer though; if it wasn't for the STL, I would have given up a long time ago.
Perhaps no other _popular_ alternatives but still there are alternatives.
It has now morphed into a language where today's optimal code looks horribly inefficient by yesterday's standards. Which adds another layer of uncertainty to what was already a pretty serious mess of a language.
Calling this simple is about as silly as it gets. Thanks, but no thanks, I have problems to solve.