Could be selection bias. Companies (or departments within companies) who are still actively developing their C++ code probably tend to hire more developers and consultants than companies who are doing minimal maintenance on their code base, and that might correlate well with the “two factions of C++” discussed here.

“Our code is an asset” ⇒ code kept up-to-date

“Our code is a burden, but we need it” ⇒ change averse