Articles like this sadden me deeply. There are too many Java programmers who are misinformed about the merits of their language and the supposed weaknesses of o

Articles like this sadden me deeply. There are too many Java programmers who are misinformed about the merits of their language and the supposed weaknesses of other languages—especially C++. I've worked extensively with Java and C++ for nearly twenty years, so I know the ins and outs of each. I have never understood why people would say that the performance of Java has "caught up" with C++. It's not even close. When you use Java, you don't use it for speed. You want C++ for that. As for safety, C++ has made major strides in the last few years and is now, by virtue of features like std::shared_ptr<>, as safe as you want it to be. But that leads us to "simplicity." There's no question that Java wins here. C++ is an incredibly complicated language—a federation of languages, as Scott Meyers says. The benefit of C++ is that it can (as of C++11, anyway) marry both extreme speed and excellent safety—but to do so you either have to really know what you're doing or abide by a strict subset of the language. Java holds you to a stricter subset to begin with. There's a loss of power but a gain in simplicity. Of course neither language is terribly safe as compared with a modern functional language, but that's not on the post author's radar. Frankly, if I were choosing a set of languages to work with now I would not choose Java and C++. I'd choose C++ and Haskell, or some such highly pure language. Java provides a "blue collar" level of safety, but I find in general that the gains over modern C++ in this area are not worth the costs. If I really want a clearly safer language than C++ (or C), I want something a lot safer (and, preferably, faster) than Java. But those whose careers are tied to Java will keep beating these drums. Sad.