Yeah, thanks for that. I'm a little surprised you haven't had more of a response to your perspective on all this actually. There's so many analogies that one c

Yeah, thanks for that. I'm a little surprised you haven't had more of a response to your perspective on all this actually. There's so many analogies that one could use that I dare not attempt one. Like if C is like metallurgy, the C++ is like alchemy. I should stop before it appears foolish. I've moved from C and C++ in big systems feeding financial instruments at hundreds of thousands of items a second through rooms full of computers to PHP and Go and back to C for embedded, where I spend all my time at the moment. So I fit into one of this articles categories. I had a dirty little problem with multiple devices sharing a single bus, with all its chip select and clocking issues, and mutual exclusion with near zero wait states was the problem to be solved. C++ to the rescue. Not because it couldn't be done in C ( or assembler for that matter, an even more magic approach ), but because inheriting the bus made architectural sense. It isn't hard to read, document or maintain, because the code structure maps well to the underlying fixed hardware. In this case, the language suits. And it all has to happen in less than 32K with all the rest of the code. There's always a lot of discussion about this language versus that. Generally, I'll use whatever suits, and Javascript and PHP required no learning at all, and I already knew Java to a degree. They are C'ish enough to pick up without effort if one already knows C. Objective-C and Go and Java where the shoe fits, and from what others are saying, Rust is one I need to know. Independently of Microsofts policy in Windows 8 with IDL and .NET changes, or tossing the idea around as to whether C or C++ should go in the Objective-C mix with XCode and Apple, the thing I can use C++ for is making the best solution possible for fundamental problems with machines, where implementing a concept over a base or virtual machine facility is efficient. In those cases, the argument against efficiency fails. But it's really a specialisation given the volume of solutions that are needed in the current state of userland software. Horses for courses. There's a lot more volume now, and managed languages are a better fit in that environment. This is the house that Jack built. You don't need a hammer and nails. You want a paint brush.