> If that were true, then Linux distros wouldn't still be using GCC. Simply because there is no better alternative (clang doesn't bring anything new). However,

> If that were true, then Linux distros wouldn't still be using GCC. Simply because there is no better alternative (clang doesn't bring anything new). However, distros switched to egcs fork when gcc wasn't up to date. > New programmers, by and large, don't even know C anymore. New programmers are interested in web, just like they aren't interested in desktop GUI development. Should I say that desktop is dead? I don't see we are booting usable machines in browsers yet. > The problems with C haven't been so much "ironed out" as ignored since C99. I think you need to hang more with embedded/kernel/C devs more and get insight into their mindset. They aren't interested in new stuff as much as in language stability. > You bring up Java as though it were a failure! Java has in fact been beating C++ in total usage for years. You read it wrong - I haven't said Java failed, but introduced new stuff to cope with. Java should thank it's popularity to huge ecosystem and library, Sun's aggressive marketing, jvm and extreme language stability. > If I could point to one thing that was responsible for kickstarting the slow decline of C++ that has continued to this day, Java would be it. Did I mention C++ here?