> I don’t see how you can draw this conclusion. Those two languages were created without consideration of backwards compatibility with C/C++ source code and we

> I don’t see how you can draw this conclusion. Those two languages were created without consideration of backwards compatibility with C/C++ source code and were designed for the same job. It stands to reason that given no constraints of compatibility, you'd get something similar to those languages. Now obviously, those languages do not have all the features of C++ nor the same design principles. But as soon as you have all the features of C++ with the same principles, you have something so close to C++, that it doesn't make sense to break backwards compatibility.