This language changes too much and too little all at the same time. It creates a burden on the developers without lifting many of the burdens of C++.

I can imagine the thought process behind the designers of the language went as follows:

"It's not possible to improve C++ without breaking backwards compatibility"

"That's correct, but if we're going to break backwards compatibility anyways, why not use this as an opportunity to change a bunch of things?"

aka the python 3 mentality, where necessary changes were combined with unnecessary changes that caused pointless migration costs. The fallacy is derived from the fact that breaking backwards compatibility is considered a massive fixed cost due to the fact that libraries have to be updated, therefore adding small incremental costs will not meaningfully increase overall cost. In reality the fixed cost of breaking backwards compatibility can be reduced massively if the proper care is taken, which means all the "just because" changes that were thrown in as a bonus, end up representing a much larger share of the migration cost than initially anticipated.