> C++ is also not a ‘replacement’ or a ‘successor’ to C, it’s a fork which slowly ‘devolved’ its C subset into a slightly different dialect of C without much ho

> C++ is also not a ‘replacement’ or a ‘successor’ to C, it’s a fork which slowly ‘devolved’ its C subset into a slightly different dialect of C without much hope that the two languages can ever be united again (which IMHO is a damn shame, because being able to mix C with a sane subset of C++ would be really useful for writing libraries). Isn't this just... wrong? I mean I write in a common subset of C and C++, starting from ANSI C or C99 if required, and then when I am later required to use C++ features, I try to isolate those portions, and expose them through C interfaces. Maybe the author meant something else, and I am misreading this.