I'm actually going to defend the term. For starters, the languages are in practice quite similar as used in many codebases (e.g. C++ codebases where they just

I'm actually going to defend the term. For starters, the languages are in practice quite similar as used in many codebases (e.g. C++ codebases where they just don't use destruction at scope exit, have exceptions and RTTI disabled outright, and eschew modern features in favor of targeting older compilers, etc. - or C codebases where GNU extensions are used to get automatic cleanup at the end of scope!) Further, headers are routinely set up to be safe C and C++, with a few #ifdef __cplusplus extern "C"s to help manage name mangling. And I'm struggling to think of a significant codebase which I've actually shipped that was pure C++, rather than C++ with at minimum a few customizations to some third party C library, embedded as part of the same build (to say absolutely nothing of system libs.) I suppose you could argue it should in some cases be C/C++/Objective C/Objective C++/(C++/CX)/(C++/CLI)/...