[SuperV1234]

Most of these features have been used by countless C++ developers for the past decades -- I really don't see the point in adopting a language that's mostly C++ but without some of the warts. Either pick C++ or something like Rust.

[jokoon]

I would prefer a "lightweight" C++.

C++ is fine, but it's insanely slow to compile.

I generally like C++, but I could trade anything to make it faster to compile, and most of the time, I just use a small subset of C++ that I feel okay with.

[pjmlp]

Pre-compiled headers, binary libraries, avoid header only libraries, if lucky to be on latest clang/VC++, modules.

[SuperV1234]

C++ is not slow to compile. The Standard Library is.

[joshring2]

C3 benefits from focusing more on the problem at hand than language complexities.

There are definitely advantages to simpler tools, you can streamline development and make people more productive quicker. Compare that scenario to C++ where you first have to agree the features you're allowing and then have to police that subset throughout on every PR.

[pjmlp]

Is for the C++ without Classes crowd, mostly.

Personally when I initially learned C++ back in 1993, with Turbo C++ 1.0 for MS-DOS, I hardly saw a reason to further use C instead C++, other than being required to do so.

[throwawaymaths]

the problem with picking C++ is that eventually you onboard someone who uses the warts in their code, and then the warts become like craft glitter.

[jack_pp]

Maybe instead of building a restricted C++ we should be building parsers that restrict what C++ features we use.

[pjmlp]

A matter of code review and static analysis configuration.

Unfortunately adhering to modern tooling is always a quixotic battle, even when they come for free on modern FOSS compilers.

[Retro_Dev]

To me it didn't really feel like C++; it is much less complicated. Could you explain more what you mean by this?

[arp242]

C3 is "mostly C++" in the same way that my bicycle is "mostly a motorbike".