Popular Myths about C++, Part 3

Nothing, they do update the language. But fundamentally changing the language to be completely different is not the same as adding some small thing. C is simple on purpose. Adding complexity is not just an update, it is making it no longer suitable for its intended goal. So they choose not to.

>I would rather prefer not reinventing the wheel and a language that actually ship with it.

You don't have to reinvent the wheel, use a library like you already said.

>I think your definition of simple is very different of mine

Clearly. But mine is the same as 90% of the people who have commented on the subject. People overwhelmingly describe C as simple.

>Scheme is simple

Yes it is. As is C.

>How come something cumbersome has nothing to do with simplicity?

You just quoted how. Are you joking?

>Also I am not saying that C++ is simple

But you are arguing that C is complex and thus not appropriate, while C++ is appropriate. You can't have it both ways.

>Yes, I have used both in my formal job, and I can avoid memory leaks and memory corruption easily on C++

Which has what to do with debugging? And why are you incapable of avoiding those problems easily with C when everyone else does it just fine?

>Not the case on C, specially when working in medium size teams where always people forget what they should cast a void* into and why they should not.

Yes, clearly there's no way groups of people could work together on large complex software in C. I'll go tell linux, apache, X, all 4 BSDs, nginx, postgresql, postfix, etc, etc, etc that they don't exist. I'm sure they'll be glad to know.

>Well Scheme is a good example of language that is order of magnitudes simpler than C and it is not prone to memory leaks nor memory corruptions

Scheme is not even one order of magnitude simpler than C. Go read the specs. And scheme is not prone to memory leaks and "corruption" because it is higher level. This also makes it much slower. Even more importantly, it makes it a ridiculous comparison.

>If by simple you mean simpler than C++, yeah.

You are the one advocating C++ over C while claiming C is too complex. What are you blaming me for?

However, there are multiple other languages that I would rather program in -- although there are still places where I would chose to use C or C++.

I was mostly disappointed that when I tried to use many of the features of C++ that were beyond an intermediate level, the real warts of the language made it not worth the hassle.

I suspect some of that has improved in the latest version of the language spec (and some in the version prior), but I haven't seen anything so far that has excited me enough to get back into it much.