It look that we don't agree on the definition of "best". When I judge a language I don't look at the availability of programmers or libraries: that's a short te

It look that we don't agree on the definition of "best". When I judge a language I don't look at the availability of programmers or libraries: that's a short term concern. A valid one, mind you, but one that can stick us to a local maximum. > [Yosefk don' get it]. But this isn't the place for me to spend hours refuting a link that too you mere seconds to dig up. Actually, I've read the whole thing. And a good deal of the FAQ as well. Also, I think there is a good chance that Yosef did understood the rationale behind C++, but was challenging it nonetheless. > Ah. I see now that I'm arguing with an ideologue. I know my statement contradicts 99% of the industry. But I don't have much choice. Basically I believe 2 things: (1) side effects, like assignment, should be avoided or isolated, and (2) coupling between modules should be minimized. OO as I see it violates both principles: objects are state-full by default, and coupling is often high (many methods per class, inheritance). The conclusion is inevitable: either I don't "get" OO, or my beliefs are false, or 99% of the industry is making a mistake. Now I don't believe that OO is always a mistake. I just believe that for most problems, it is a mistake to apply an OO solution. (Note that I say "believe", not "think". Actually, I am still full of doubts).