The downvoters are anti capitalists it seems. If you don't like me, don't downvote me, just leave it as it's. I never ever will downvote who loves socialism in HN.
I don't think they are wannabes. Getting a feature accepted to C++ is hard. That's why most people push their features into Boost (well, MVP style). The C++ committee has respected people with years of experience.
> By “reinvent everything,” I believe you mean to say that you have to make your own linked-lists to have adjustable strings, and you have to create structs with function pointers to have objects…
Spot on.
> C chose to be simple in the language itself and not in the code.
But it market itself being simple so people even newcomers think that C is simple in every regard. Only few people rarely acknowledge this fact.
> The single greatest praise that I will give to C is that the entirety of the language can be held in the mind of the programmer using it, with zero need for reference. This is impossible in most other languages.
In other languages, which parts you are unable to held in your mind?
The only instance where I need references in C++ is STD library features. But if we measure, it take less time than if we were to reinvent it on C.
C is not perfect. It's closer to assembly, but you can't do anything useful without reinventing most things that is already done in C++.
C++ STD lib is not a big mess. At least, I am using it for decades. I don't know if you really used it because those who are against STD doesn't understand the point of abstractions and it's utility. They always tend to cite why would I use vector when I can create a "simple" linked list myself with pointers.
Both. SerenityOS, includeOS, Managarm used Modern C++ for Kernel. For example, Managarm used coroutines and Templates also RAII stuff like lock_guard in it's kernel.
I use cppcms most of times but in some cases I use Seastar for high perf.