I dont think I made any references to complexity in my tweet.

All I was trying to say is that the bad news with respect to C++ is priced in and the language only has to be marginally better than what its detractors make it out to be.

> each have to mandate their own C++ subset in order to tame it's ridiculous complexity?

this one of those things that keeps getting repeated, but at least personally I have never seen in the wild.

Yeah, in my experience whenever a new C++ feature becomes available there is always someone who really wants to shove it in the codebase everywhere.

As Carmack once said, if it compiles, it'll find its way in your codebase.

IMHO a language's complexity is proportional to the square of the number of bnf rules. By this measure C++ is a disaster. If Thompson and Ritchie had tried to write UNIX in C++ they would have certainly failed!

All the old c++ is still here though, as always is a language where it’s hard to understand all of it.