> and argue that this means it's not worth the hassle of switching to a new language.

Defenders of C++ argue that there's no reason to change the language, because new features around safety guarantees are being introduced into every C++ standard starting from C++11 at a remarkable pace, so remarkable that compilers implement them faster than the existing adoption rate. And the adoption rate speaks volumes about existing capacity to port/rewrite big codebases in entirely new stacks. The new stacks also tend to have fewer custom static code quality analyzers from third-party vendors, and they are used a lot in mission-critical C++ codebases.

> The new stacks also tend to have fewer custom static code quality analyzers from third-party vendors, and they are used a lot in mission-critical C++ codebases.

Are these static code quality analyzers detecting code quality problems that Rust and company are also vulnerable to? Or are they mostly looking out for the hundreds of legacy footguns that C++ still officially supports?

They focus on quality control and compliance to safety requirements in specific domains and industries, for instance MISRA.