Where C++ fits

We use C++ when the problem is latency, determinism, or long-lived native code — telecom stacks, performance services, integration with vendor SDKs, and systems that must survive years of production abuse.

• Real-time and near–real-time services — audio/video, signalling, device or exchange-adjacent logic.
• Thin abstraction — you need control over memory, threading, and build flags, not a thick runtime.
• Cross-platform native bases that later gain UIs (including Qt/QML when the product needs a serious desktop surface).

New systems vs extending an existing codebase

Greenfield C++ costs more at the start: build system, coding standards, threading model, logging, crash reporting, and first production release. Maintenance and extension is usually a stable monthly rhythm: triage, patch releases, refactors behind feature flags, and dependency upgrades — as long as technical debt is kept visible.

Junior vs senior on native code

C++ mistakes are expensive. We staff senior engineers for architecture, concurrency, and build/release, and use mid-level engineers for bounded features with mandatory review. Juniors contribute best on tests, tooling, and smaller modules once patterns are established — not on unguarded core paths.

Representative delivery (on-page summary)

For Qt/QML-heavy desktop surfaces, the same governance model applies with more UI-specialised capacity.

Cost expectations

Software work is milestone-scoped — commercial shape is confirmed after discovery and aligns with our pricing page (no published USD rate card for dedicated teams). Employed engineers sit under monthly GBP team economics where that model applies — see offshore app development and payroll/compliance. Larger native programmes are split into phases so spend tracks risk.