I’d bet if you were a lego fan you’d say the same about legos.

Housing and concerts are orders of magnitude apart in “importantness”. All of the items above are not needed to live. A home is needed.

And unfortunately, this means that WG21, the C++ committee, has to take action because people are demanding it

Why does this mean that they have to take action? Why do they need to make C++ memory safe?

C++ was not designed to be memory safe. If you try to make C++ memory safe, you’ll have to break retro compatibility. If you’re going to break retro compatibility, can you say it’s still C++? Or another language called C++2? At that point, why not just use another language that was designed from the start to be memory safe?

The action that should be taken is to completely avoid starting any new project in C++, and let the language die. A programming language is nothing more than a tool, once the tool no longer works, you search for another that does.

C++ should go the way of fortran and cobol. The only development of C++ should be done is to maintain existing huge codebases that would be too expensive to rewrite.

I’m not so sure that dynamic libraries always reduces the size. Specially with libraries that are linked by a single binary.

With static libraries, you can conditionally compile only the features you’re gonna use. With dynamic libraries, however, the whole library must be compiled.

EDIT: just to clarify, I’m not saying that static libraries result always in less size. I’m saying that it’s not a black and white issue.