Essentially C++ and the modern ideas about computer security are at war.

I've seen Rust being used for the layer above C++, where it doesn't have to deal with I/O, scheduling, etc that don't play well with Rust but you still want the throughput/latency and memory safety.

Hell, highly optimized numerical simulations are still being written in freaking Fortran.

In some software architectures, there are schedulers with a global view of the entire (potential) conflict graph and they have complete control of what gets executed when. These architectures don’t even require locks because the scheduler has enough visibility and control to guarantee that execution won’t be scheduled such that there would ever be a contended lock or some other concurrency conflict. No amount of mutable references to the same memory will break these models, and the correctness of some implementations have been formally verified. The scheduler can always dynamically reorder execution to guarantee the invariants of the system. These models have the added benefit of having insanely good locality properties such that throughput is excellent.

These software architectures originated in HPC over a decade ago and eventually bled over into high-end database kernels. I learned it from when I worked in HPC many years ago and have used it every since, due to its unambiguous advantages.

For example you might be able to wrap shared-mutable state in a kind of degenerate mutex and pass a "scheduler guarantee" token around that unlocks those "mutexes" without doing any runtime work.

1) Neither iOS, nor "the web" are new platforms.

2) Not only you can program with C++ on iOS, it's heavily used in certain kinds of applications.

3) Why would anyone single out a specific language and claim that it's a problem that you can't use it to build websites with it? This applies to all languages with one exception. Or it did, because now there's WebASM, which makes this argument even more bizarre.

4) C++ had and has first-class support on Windows.

2) Objective-C++ may look like C++ but their different languages. As always beware of edge cases.

3) WebAsm is somewhat “supported“ by 92% of web browsers which sounds great but isn’t enough to be viable for companies like Amazon. But hey it’s a cool toy if you don’t have real work to do.

4) I have run into plenty of missing C++ documentation when C# documentation was available on Windows. It’s supported sure, but very much a second class citizen.

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/apps/winui/winui3/x...

Really? That's the opposite of my impression. It seems to me that they promote it as co-equal to C# as primary focus in their constellation of supported and encouraged application programming languages.