For the vast majority of people, a car functions as a horse used to before there were cars -- it functions better, in fact. Yet car designers are not required to be intimately familiar with horse care.
You are pointing out marketing issues. I agree that if you don't actually have a better C++ than C++, then you will have difficulty convincing most C++ users that they should switch.
By the same token, if you actually do have a better C++ than C++, it will be evident in the adoption of the technology.
Also at this point, if Java, Go, Objective-C, D, and C# have not convinced the current user base of C++ to use other things, then perhaps it is no more possible or necessary to convince these remaining users to switch than it is to convince modern horse riders that they shouldn't bother to ride, own, or breed horses. For them there cannot be a "better C++ than C++."
You are pointing out marketing issues. I agree that if you don't actually have a better C++ than C++, then you will have difficulty convincing most C++ users that they should switch.
By the same token, if you actually do have a better C++ than C++, it will be evident in the adoption of the technology.
Also at this point, if Java, Go, Objective-C, D, and C# have not convinced the current user base of C++ to use other things, then perhaps it is no more possible or necessary to convince these remaining users to switch than it is to convince modern horse riders that they shouldn't bother to ride, own, or breed horses. For them there cannot be a "better C++ than C++."