He makes very few good points. There is much to mock about C++, but he hasn't hit on any of them. Actually, it's pretty clear by some of his comments that if he

He makes very few good points. There is much to mock about C++, but he hasn't hit on any of them. Actually, it's pretty clear by some of his comments that if he's used C++, his knowledge has long rusted ([] to initialize arrays? sorry. no. that's {}. If you're critiquing a language, please learn it's syntax first.) Anyways, let's take a few points where he totally misses the ball: Please, please don’t add language features just to make the lives of library designers easier. Add features to make the average programmer’s life easier. Seriously? You don't think that being able to write libraries that integrate with the language seamlessly will make the programmer's life easier? You think that std::vector<int> blah; blah.push(0); blah.push(1); blah.push(2); beats std::vector<int> blah = {0,1,2}; ...The fact that in contravention of who-knows- how-many-years of tradition, return type is going after the function and parameter names? Hey, just like every functional language that you spent the last few paragraphs praising. If you'd complained about it being inconsistent, you may have even had a point! something like int anon(...){...} would probably have been a cleaner syntax, despite being hell to parse (what in C++ isn't hell to parse, though?) I could go on, but I've got stuff to do. Still, if you're going to rant, please make it a well-informed rant! For the most part,the C++ FQA still applies to C++0x, among many others; plenty specific to C++0x This really reads like a "WAHH! C++ isn't Python or Java!" post. only by someone that barely passed his C++ class in college. Edit: Fix up formatting.