&gt; I feel like I&#x27;m looking at a laundry list of mostly minor, tiny issues, that are a &quot;solved problem&quot; in the form of existing warnings. I can crank them up to errors as I modernize a codebase.<p>So the perspective you might be missing is that there absolutely <i>are</i> broken or useless parts of the C++ standard. There <i>has</i> to be a way to fix those if we want:<p>1. Continued improvements to the C++ language<p>2. Compilers that aren&#x27;t needlessly complex to implement and support<p>3. Fewer weird edge cases and therefore fewer bugs when people miss them.<p>4. A language that can be taught to you instead of drilled into you.<p>A case in point is trigraphs. They are an almost entirely useless feature that requires an extra compiler pass. They cause real bugs that confuse and surprise all but the most grizzled C++ devs (myMap[&quot;crazyUserName!!!??!?!&quot;]). It was like moving heaven and Earth to get them slated for removal in C++17.<p>It is not acceptable that things like this are this hard to get deprecated and removed. There needs to be an accepted, uncontroversial way to identify cruft, mark it deprecated, and eventually remove it from the language.<p>So... why the minor, tiny issues? Because we&#x27;re not ready for the big ones yet. Let&#x27;s get some minor issues under our belts and then we&#x27;ll figure out how to deal with bigger ones.