The resources here are amplified elsewhere.

As a specific example, expanding constexpr means a codebase I recently worked on can move away from template metaprogramming magic to something that is more idiomatic. That means iterating on that code will be easier, faster, and less error-prone. I've already done static dispatch using constexpr and type traits that would have taken longer to do with templates.

Currently constexpr programming needs you to know the specifics of what is supported - ideally you'll be able to infer that from first principles of the invariants that are available at compile time. That leads to faster, more confident development.

It's a similar story for reflection: we were using custom scripts and soon won't have to. The changes usually come out of the problems people are already finding solutions for in the real world, rather than gilding a lily.

I think it'd genuinely boggle some people's minds just how much new c++ code is written everyday. It's not a dead horse at all.

Although there are excellent alternatives to C++ such as Rust, C++ is still widely used as many open-source and commercial codebases are built with it.

Adding features to a language that is still actively used does not seem like a bad thing.

COBOL is being actively developed as a language, the latest standard was published in 2023.

> Are they flogging a dead horse?

Not exactly. There's a lot of C++ code that still can't be rewritten into cool languages overnight without risking correctness, performance and readability.

I'm always happy to see C++ pushing itself and the compiler backends as it benefits the victims of lame codebases and also the cool kids using the improved compiler backends.

from which other language can I make a GUI with Qt while doing low-level graphics and DSP?

Ask yourself why any programming language gets any changes once there's an arbitrary number of users.

Do you like using a fast web browser?