The main argument against using 'bloatware C++/Java' for teaching is that the language obscures the relevant idea/lesson at hand and so makes the learning proce

The main argument against using 'bloatware C++/Java' for teaching is that the language obscures the relevant idea/lesson at hand and so makes the learning process unnecessary harder. But the problem is that you have to define what kind of learning experience you wanted to achieve in the first place. If you use assembler as a teaching 'language' (or some similarly lowlevel language) you would show all the nitty-gritty details of what's going on, but you would probably be attacking too many points at a given time. If on the other hand you'd use a more abstract language than 'C/C++/Java', then you may loose some details along the way, but you will be able to focus much more on the algorithmical/computational part of what is being taught. So in the end it's all about what you want to learn/teach and only after that's been decided you can choose the appropriate language to best transport the lessons with.