No surprise, the C++ Committee is still trending toward C++ Profiles. It would have been a huge change had the Committee embraced Baxter's Rustification memory safety proposal. Would mean banning pointers. Making the C++ language much like Rust would deeply break every C++ program in the world.

Article at TheRegister: “Rust-style safety model for C++ 'rejected' as profiles take priority” https://www.theregister.com/2025/09/16/safe_c_proposal_ditched/

[ The C++ standards committee abandoned a detailed proposal to create a rigorously safe subset of the language, according to the proposal's co-author, despite continuing anxiety about memory safety.]

Article at Le Monde (in French): “The C++ standards committee rejected a proposal to create a secure subset of the language. Members prefer to focus on the Profiles framework pushed by C++ creator Bjarne Stroustrup.” https://www.lemondeinformatique.fr/actualites/lire-avec-amp-mongodb-modernise-les-applications-heritees-97888.html

[ "If you mark your code to apply a Profile, some features of the C/C++ language will stop working," he says. There is also a small problem, these guidelines were not integrated into version 26 of C++, but simply into a white paper.

The controversy surrounding the security of C++ opens the door to another solution with the use of another language. The first advocated by several American authorities is Rust, but there is also Google's experimental Carbon project. Unveiled in 2022, it also aims to modernize C++. ]

If Profiles are eventually adopted, it may Balkanize C++ by dividing C++ into safe and unsafe subsets. C++ Profiles won't fix the issue of making C pointers memory safe. A proposal to implement pointer memory safety is TrapC, but for the C language, not C++. Some say make the switch to Rust, but that doesn't solve the safety problems lurking in billions of lines of existing C/C++ code.