[Disclaimer: I only read the first part.] Let's say we include in the C standard library a routine, `const char *scan_str(int fd)`, one only need to remember to

[Disclaimer: I only read the first part.] Let's say we include in the C standard library a routine, `const char *scan_str(int fd)`, one only need to remember to free the returned string once finished with it. Or we can even get away by using static buffers. All the safety and practical requirement are merely implementation details that "user" needn't care (unless they are the implementor). It appears to me that most of the complexity argument in the article is on the availability of library routines, plus, there is a shift of roles from implementor to user -- we all wear different hats from time to time. The article was from 1999, but similar arguments are still popular today or even more so, that using convenience of library availability as strength in language. A rich standard library plus some implicit notations to using the standard library may have its appeal to some users. For some other, who understands the possibility of million ways of implementing a function and the importance of understanding subtleties, C++ is really too complex to use.