>>1055966I reject all of these arguments.
> C++ semantics are too complex and error-prone for fail-safe softwareAs I said before fail-safe software is debugged as fuck and has many test-cases, you can write bugged shit even in Haskell, it depends on your skill not on language. Of course it has lesser change in specially designed languages but what the cost?
>I never said C is difficult, but nonetheless, even C isn't particularly suitable for safety-critical systems, so only a restricted subset of it is used when necessary. There are well-established standards for this, like MIRCA-C. Your opinions about this are irrelevant. I'm telling you the facts.
So what's your point? If you're trying to say that languages designed for being fail-safe is more safe for safety-critical systems, I agree. But it doesn't mean they are better at all.
>We could argue about why it is the case all day, but it doesn't matter. Popularity doesn't decide what is best from a technical perspective. It just reflects the market, and the market has many considerations besides what is technically superior. I already gave you one example: it's easier to teach someone Java or C++ than Common Lisp or Haskell, and big companies prefer the code monkeys to be cheap and easily replaceable.No, tell me why when C wasn't invented yet and most people had to know lisp why they switched to C after its inventing?
Also it's not easier to teach someone C++ than Common Lisp or Haskell, to be a good C++ programmer you must know way much more shit than to be a good Haskell programmer.
>All of this can be done and has been done better in languages besides C and C++.This's not true.
>>1056182>C++ syntax treeI'm not sure what did you mean by this. Did you mean AST?
>add new syntax to the languageWhy would I even want add new syntax?
>completely customize the object systemWhy did you mean by this?
>multiple dispatchYou can implement it in C or C++ easily.
>dynamic typingLiterally the worst thing
