Same can be said about e.g. Cobol.
There have been dozens of working C++ competitors over the years, each one technically as good as C++.
They all failed because their authors are good at writing languages, but very bad at knowing how languages are used in the real world.
The C++ committee really knows what it's doing, you're not going to do anything useful in this space without actually understanding the problem domain.
TL;DR - yes, C++ is complex, but that is because programming is complex. Your attitude of "programming is hard, let's go (language) shopping" will not displace C++.
I totally agree that C++ of 21st century is way better than C++ from 1998, and is becoming better. The problem is that maintaining backwards compatibility requires to keep a number of footguns in place, and some of them are cornerstones of the language :(
I have high hopes for Rust becoming the more sane competitor in the space traditionally occupied by C++. Its authors seem to understand the problem domain from a very practical standpoint, and are proficient in C++, to begin with. They also strive to apply reasonable design principles, and some actual math hopefully will keep the core of the language from logical pitfalls.
Another example of hitting a sweet spot is Go. I dislike many Go's language decisions. (Some are definitely great, though, e.g. the whole OOP approach lifted from Oberon.) But its authors definitely understand both the problem domain, and the target audience.
This is what I mean by talking about success despite the flaws. C++ has both flaws and merits, and merits outweighed the flaws. But the flaws are still painful.
Cobol also was a good idea back in the day. And some of the ideas in Cobol we know recognize as bad _had_ to be tried to gain that recognition.
