> “I think C++ can do anything Rust can do, and I would like it to be much simpler to use.”<p>I think Bjarne isn't getting the <i>issue</i> with C++. Yes they're Turing-complete, yes they can both solve the same set of problems.<p>The issue is that C++ can do <i>everything</i> that <i>every</i> other language can do, which means it's not a language, it's a universe of features. You make the language by picking which features, patterns, philosophies, architectures you want. It's like if a language dictionary included English, simplified Chinese and Korean.<p>The problem IMO is there's no such thing as C++. Each company, each team, each person has their own. Many of these C++'s are incompatible with each other.<p>Worse, many of the new language features can't be properly implemented because they would break someone else's C++.<p>The problem is it tries to be everything to everyone, and that makes it (and futures standardization efforts) full-on Quixotic efforts. I mean, by all means, have at those windmills tho.<p>Bjarne points out how much he hates templates, and has some great new ideas for generic programming. Lovely, but he's never gonna get rid of templates, so now we have 2 problems.