This is my feeling. C++ doesn’t need to be anything more than it is. There’s no void a supposed safe C++ needs to fill; that’s what Rust is doing.

Nah, I disagree. Rust fills the void of "natively compiled safe language". If you need something that's "like C++" (whatever that means to you) but safe, Rust may not work for you. And it's certainly not true that no one needs a safe C++. If someone right now starts a new project in C++ and not Rust it's because that's what they think is best all things considered, not because they don't need memory safety.

> If someone right now starts a new project in C++ and not Rust it's because that's what they think is best all things considered, not because they don't need memory safety.

I guess most reasons are 'use what we know well', and 'use what we have tooling for'. But there's probably some others.

And also a common reason: use the language with features that Rust does not have.

on the view that their interests are to grow & preserve c++

competitors will compete