>>1058947I did address your question: your rhetorical question is based on the false premise that a language's popularity reflects technical superiority, and your delusions that nobody uses CL. There's literally nothing else I need to say with regards to it. It's an invalid argument, not a legitimate question.
>you're trying to convince me that C++ is shitThe only things I was actually trying to convince you of are:
1. that it isn't used for all serious projects as you claim
2. and that it isn't powerful compared to other languages
Those are objective facts. I think that you and C++ are dog shit, but that's my opinion and not the subject of the debate.
