> C++ killed the one saving grace of C, it's relative simplicity, and created a language that is a dumping ground of ideas. I think the average C++ programmer

> C++ killed the one saving grace of C, it's relative simplicity, and created a language that is a dumping ground of ideas. I think the average C++ programmer is pretty aware of the language's downsides. It's still a language with important practical upsides though: there are plenty of C++ programmers out there for hire, there are many existing C++ projects that need to be worked on, and it has a strong ecosystem of compilers and libraries. There seems to be little prospect of C++ losing its near-monopoly in core game-engine code, for instance. (I say all this as someone who usually gives C++ a hard time for its poor safety, and associated security issues.) > That C++ is widely used by professionals who don't understand their tools is just another reason why software is so crappy these days. No doubt there are many security issues with those roots, and many instances of code that's needlessly non-portable. Those are due to specific issues with C++ though, not its general complexity. I imagine the practical consequence of the language's complexity is to drag out development times, rather than to undermine software quality. I haven't given this too much thought though, and this is essentially a guess. > The notion that you just "learn what you need" is an anathema. I agree this idea makes little sense. If you work in a team, you may be asked to debug someone else's code. If you're going to work with C++, there's no denying the value in having a deep knowledge of the language.