There's two:
> Even I can’t answer every question about C++ without reference to supporting material (e.g. my own books, online documentation, or the standard). I’m sure that if I tried to keep all of that information in my head, I’d become a worse programmer.
-- Bjarne Stroustrup, creator of C++
He also seems completely uninterested in finding that, "elegant language struggling to get out." He just asserts that it's there, as if its mere existence is a virtue.
I think Herb Sutter is at least trying to find that elegant language, with his "syntax v2" project. It's one way to preserve compatibility with the incalculable amount of C++ in the wild, while also providing a simplified syntax with better defaults and fewer foot-guns.
Of course, Herb isn't immune to making hand-wavy claims[0] of his own, but he seems to bring forward more good ideas than bad.
[0] https://herbsutter.com/2025/03/30/crate-training-tiamat-un-c...
There’s another slogan that also acts as catch-all dismissal - “easy things should be easy; hard things should be possible”. Yes, but the bar for “hard things” just happens to be frustratingly low compared to other languages - ie library programming that has enough genericity and robustness. To wit, this example.
> easy things should be easy; hard things should be possible
> elegant language
Ok so there's a couple of leaps in this argument. All languages having "warts" is not equivalent to all languages "not being elegant", for one.
The other is that not all "language warts" are equal. Few would claim the severity of the footguns are equally bad among the languages you listed.
More importantly, I think Bjarne's comment was more about C++ being hindered by its commitment to backwards compatibility and mistakes in previous design decisions getting in the way of making new designs elegant to implement. Unless you come up with a completely new syntax (Herb Sutter's cpp2) or a way to locally break backwards compatibility (Sean Baxter's Circle) C++ has forced itself into a corner.
Bjarne has his moments - I like his saying that somewhere buried underneath all of C++'s complexity there's an elegant language struggling to get out, and I'm sympathetic to his frustrations and believe he does have good intentions there.
But he can also contradict himself sometimes in this regard, because he also often uses a variation of calling C++ a language for "people who know what they are doing" as a sort of catch-all dismissal of critiques of its footguns.
The whole problem is that very few people can claim to truly "know what they are doing" when it comes to all of C++' features and how they interconnect, dismissing that by (implicitly) telling people to just "git gud" is missing the point a bit.
But again, he's only human and I do get the urge to get a bit defensive of your baby.