>>11
By "next steps" I meant that there seem to be some pending movements to make C++ practical, less footguns. Migrating away from OO, like you've shared, sounds enticing.
I may give your book a shot, thanks for recommending.
If you have any popular C++ repos that are written in the modern C++ design style that I could reference, I would enjoy looking through them.
I'm not that versed but from what I read there are some pending developments for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2B23 and there's also some novel stuff, like https://www.circle-lang.org/ or https://github.com/hsutter/cppfront
From what I read elsewhere, there are so many ways to do something in C++ and plenty of footguns that you only acclimate to by osmosis it seems. This is what makes the languages I referenced attractive as there's only one way to do things.
You're right on the game engine vs game aspect. But I found the background of CaveStory inspiring (where one guy wrote the engine and the game) -- Maybe game engines are excruciatingly boring or obnoxiously complex to implement, but I think building a game from scratch has some unseen benefits. Just knowing how everything works sounds satisfying.
What do you mean by "brand-new language spec" w.r.t. to Rust?