If you want to do that, skip C++ entirely and just use Javascript or Python. You can get shiny things really quickly.

I think there's still value in learning the C++ language and making a game or a demo is quite rewarding although raylib does have bindings for basically every conceivable language.

Agreed, especially since it is the main language in the games industry, however that doesn't mean it should be the very first experience.

I'd make the opposite argument about educational value. If you learn to compile libraries and programs you have, so to speak, passed an exam: you are ready to "make games" with confidence because you know what you are doing well enough to have no fear of tool complications.

What should be minimized is the accidental complication of compiling libraries and programs, for example convoluted build systems and C++ modules.

If you learn to compile libraries and programs, you just learn how to compile libraries and programs. That doesn't teach you anything about how to "make games." It doesn't even make game development significantly easier.

I think the real answer to educating people about making games without the complications of low level programming would be using a framework like Godot or languages like Python or Lua.

Of course technical concerns aren't directly relevant to making games, but they are still necessary. Productive development means overcoming technical hurdles, not only domain specific challenges.

What if you cannot adopt some library that would do something very useful because you lack the skill integrate or replace CMake or Bazel or Autoconf? Unnecessary technical constraints impact game quality.

What if due to insufficient automation the time between tests after making a very small change is 10 minutes rather than 10 seconds? Reduced productivity impacts game quality.

Very useful skills to have. But they don’t need to be learned during the very first lesson on the very first day unless you are trying to filter people out for some reason.