The point is not whether they could, they absolutely could but whether C++ or Rust would have been a better fit considering the values that these projects have.
Just because you don't care about the downsides does not mean there are no there. First of all, which subset of C++ should be used? It is a huge language that only very few people can claim to master. So lot's of people wouldn't be able to understand or change the code anymore. That is quite the significant downside.
Not to mention all the other downsides mentioned in my other post, like being slower to compile, bigger binary and so on. Yes, those downsides might not matter to you and should not matter for many projects but they do exists.
C programmer often care more about building the best possible software not so much about having the best possible development experience while building.
That said, Rust has much better safety guarantees, so it DOES offer some significant upside that C can't.For more complex software it is is definitely a very good choice.
I do have experience using both C and Rust. Arguably, my C++ is very limited but things like C++ being a relatively large language are well established facts and quite uncontroversial.
There is no disagreement on what "subset of C++" is best: anywhere you have a choice, use the newest method supported on your compiler, because nothing is added to the language without compelling reasons.
It is true that some people resist using anything introduced since they first learned, with a few mired in C. But there is never any need to "agree" on that.
"Bigger binary" is scurrilous propaganda. Compilers nowadays use the same code generator for C and C++: say the same thing, get the same code. Furthermore, optimizers have to guess less at you are trying to do, in C++, so can do a better job. C++ code for the same task is often smaller.
"C programmers often care more about building the best possible software": this is just crude slander.
Finally: "Rust has much better safety guarantees": C++ offers much the same guarantees, where you choose to exercise them.
Just because you don't care about the downsides does not mean there are no there. First of all, which subset of C++ should be used? It is a huge language that only very few people can claim to master. So lot's of people wouldn't be able to understand or change the code anymore. That is quite the significant downside.
Not to mention all the other downsides mentioned in my other post, like being slower to compile, bigger binary and so on. Yes, those downsides might not matter to you and should not matter for many projects but they do exists.
C programmer often care more about building the best possible software not so much about having the best possible development experience while building.
That said, Rust has much better safety guarantees, so it DOES offer some significant upside that C can't.For more complex software it is is definitely a very good choice.