Just where has this language gone wrong?

[Nick Sabalausky]

On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 22:51:19 +0200
"Stuart" <stugol at gmx.com> wrote:

> On Monday, 23 July 2012 at 15:56:37 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
> > Am 23.07.2012 14:49, schrieb Stuart:
> >> On Saturday, 21 July 2012 at 22:16:52 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> C++ is living in the 70's.
> >>
> >> Precisely what I have been thinking. It's a loose wrapper 
> >> around
> >> assembly, nothing more. Certainly not the "high-level language"
> >> it's touted as.
> >
> > Only due to the lack of modules.
> >
> > Everything else is a pretty modern language I would say.
> 
> Hardly. No RTTI. No GC. No properties. No events. No closures. No 
> extension methods. No interfaces. No writable references.
> 

Null-terminated strings. Preprocessor. No reflection. Effectively
undefined sizes for primitive types. Undefined behavior galore. Neither
default initialization nor enforced initialization before variable
usage. No reference types (Foo& isn't what I mean). Horrendous type
syntax for mixed arrays/ptrs or functions ptrs, etc. No forward
references (or at least very limited). And a grammar that forces
compilation to be very, very slow.

And a lot more still that's lacking if you don't count C++11 which
isn't widely supported yet (ex: foreach, basic type inference).

And the fact that static analysis tools are as super useful as they are
is plenty proof alone that the language itself is WAAAY behind the
curve.