I think you miss the point. First you backtrack your generalization regarding languages, which makes one ask what other omitted features have to be present to

I think you miss the point. First you backtrack your generalization regarding languages, which makes one ask what other omitted features have to be present to rely on the statement. Second you're not supporting your claim "It's trivial to modularize and encapsulate and even isolate components with C++. You only need to want to do it." It directly contradicts the observation that programs, when written, are often found to be designed incorrectly, and it's important that the language would support enough their recomposition. Just wanting to make a good architecture doesn't make it right all by itself, sometimes you have to change already existing things, and how easy it is has a lot to do with the language.