C++ has also had native unicode support for a while now (made standard in C++11). The table complains that indexing is byte-based, but that's arguably better th

C++ has also had native unicode support for a while now (made standard in C++11). The table complains that indexing is byte-based, but that's arguably better than the deceptive UTF-16 based indexing many languages have, since UTF-16 code units are not equivalent to unicode code points. Even UTF-32 code points are not equivalent to composed characters or visible gylphs, so character-based indexing makes very little sense unless you're using a Unicode-specific library. I also wonder why C++ is claimed to have no instance function pointers even though std::bind was available since TR1 and boost::bind was available aeons ago. Did the author confuse C++ style function references with C function pointers? But this is like confusing the C++ std::string (which exist only as a library feature) with C-style char arrays.