This place hardly seems like an appropriate venue for debating the suitability of C++, given that a large chunk of the audience here seems to have a financial interest in competing technologies.
I assume you're referring to Rust? Who has a financial interest in Rust? I have trouble imagining Mozilla making money off of Rust directly; I don't think there's any Rust developers who wouldn't immediately jump to a fork if Mozilla put ads in Rust's documentation or decided rustc needed a default search engine.
As far as making money off of their own software written in Rust, that advantage is actually stronger if they convince everyone else Rust is stupid and not worth their time.
Because a lot of comments here seem to be very skittish due to security risks due to C++'s power, yet seem to reflect zero interest in pushing one's skills to a level where avoiding those pitfalls is second-nature. Further, since people here seem to be very invested in <sarcasm>futuristic</sarcasm> technologies and <sarcasm>disruption</sarcasm> they are naturally inclined to knock C++ just because, and then rationalize it with some technical bullshit.
> Because a lot of comments here seem to be very skittish due to security risks due to C++'s power, yet seem to reflect zero interest in pushing one's skills to a level where avoiding those pitfalls is second-nature.
If that is the case, then every browser engine, as well as every piece of large-scale network-facing software worked on by teams using reasonable development practices in C++ is written by unskilled programmers, since all of that software has vulnerabilities. In particular, you're saying that Google hires programmers unskilled in C++. Is that your argument?
> rationalize it with some technical bullshit.
If arguments about C++ are "technical bullshit", you should easily be able to explain why virtually no large-scale C++ project has been free of memory safety problems.
> If arguments about C++ are "technical bullshit", you should easily be able to explain why virtually no large-scale C++ project has been free of memory safety problems.
Way to generalize there. No C++ project has been free of memory safety problems because they don't have to be. C++ is not optimized for that. Sure you can optimize for memory safety but then real hackers (not on "Hacker" News) will find something else, and then all the internet idiots will crow on about how {LANGUAGE} doesn't sufficiently protect them from {SCARY THING}.
Maybe if we stopped adding every feature under-the-sun to our browsers, memory safety problems wouldn't be so prevalent! (But we can't have that, not if there is less money to be made!)
The FUD is strong...