To clarify, by "people" I was mostly thinking about language designers and the kinds of engineers whose job it is to think a bit further ahead. Not necessarily

To clarify, by "people" I was mostly thinking about language designers and the kinds of engineers whose job it is to think a bit further ahead. Not necessarily regular software engineers (hence the reference to "trying to fix C++". > First, it actually works. It can me made to work, which isn't the same as being a good programming language. > Second, a lot of software is written in C++. A lot of software is written in PHP, Cobol and Fortran. That doesn't mean they represent good directions. > Third, availability of third-party libraries and tookits. Valid point from a practical perspective, but not from a language design perspective. > Fourth, people do know how to write software in C++, and some even have decades > of experience under their belt. Based on a few decades of software development: some people can write good C++, most can't and the majority of those who can't are delusional about which camp they are actually in. > Fifth, it's an international standard, therefore better ensured against bit rot. That statement makes no sense to me. > Sixth, why should anyone jump onto the latest fad just because? > I seriously don't understand why this myth about "newer automatically means better" > is so entrenched in the minds of those just starting out in software development. That's a straw man.