Earlier quoted context omitted.
> All these languages are potentially-better systems languages than C/C++ No they are not. C++ has spent decades building "a better C/C++". Any language that ignores those lessons and takes the stance of "learning C++ is too hard, let's go shopping" is doomed to fail.
Apologies for being a bit blunt, but: For all the time and work poured into C++, it has remarkably little to show over plain old C99. Some of those new "better C" languages are the work of individuals and very small teams, yet they are able to build more progressive "better C" languages than C++ can ever be because it is held back by the need for backward compatibility for 'failed features' and 'design-by-committee'.…
Exactly. I think of it as a path-finding problem. C was obviously not where people wanted to be. As with any path-finding problem, it's possible to make a wrong turn. Often, attempts to recover without backtracking only make things worse. I contend that C++ has done exactly this. They're at point where a mature, reasonable person would admit their error and backtrack until a better path can be found.
I doubt that many of C++'s critics are arguing from ignorance or afraid of complexity. More often, they're objecting to spurious complexity because they know how to do better. I've written compilers, and they're not even close to being the most complex things I've written. It's not so much "let's go shopping" as "let's return this defective merchandise" and build something that works. It's only the lemmings who insist on rushing further down the wrong path. "Turning around is hard; maybe if I get enough others to come with me they'll break my fall."