That is more like an example of Blub paradox in action: You can write in everything as if it were C, you can't write C as if it were everything else. Except th

That is more like an example of Blub paradox in action: You can write in everything as if it were C, you can't write C as if it were everything else. Except that it makes a point that is subtly different from the one pg originally raised in discussing Blub paradox: If you only care about shipping something, you aren't inclined to think about abstraction as a goal state, and that's what these other languages are doing: handling things with a goal of adding abstraction that for a C++ user is out of reach or requires considerable knowledge of the C++ standard. Users of Python or JS don't know what a pointer is, and that's intended by design, because for most applications it is an implementation detail and automating it away is desirable. When most software was written in assembler, data structures more complex than an array were often avoided, because it was difficult to code and debug them. And if you were an assembly coder of that era, you might well say that you didn't see the point of structured programming, or that you could easily get the same effect in fewer bytes. And to some degree, you'd be right, because you would just design a smaller scope of application that makes those techniques viable. Trying to write something resembling modern C++ style in x86 assembly, in contrast, would be as fruitless as a JS coder trying to use C++ like JS, since your abstractions wouldn't be there. You'd have to learn the thought process of a lower level coder and apply those strategies instead of the ones you are comfortable with.