I feel proponents of any programming language put a lot of spin around what isolated aspects it is good for, but fail to illustrate what a programmer in even one target domain gains from using it.
Are there programming language implementations unlike what is described above, that you feel back up their marketing?
I wasn’t thinking not needing a runtime is a language feature. After all, needing a runtime hasn’t prevented Erlang from running on microcontrollers (Atom VM, GriSP); or Python either.
Basically, C++ and its ilk have no language feature for their purported stronghold of systems programming. Inertia isn’t a language feature unless the language has actual features (like, say, Common Lisp).
You picked out my one argument where you have a (weak) counterargument and then declare there’s no other arguments. Does not sound like you want to understand…
I did you the courtesy of replying with a bit of info about Erlang, even though you weren’t addressing the actual point about lack of language features like Erlang’s. BTW, by conceding that the argument for C++ on microcontrollers is weak given other languages doing better on that front, you are conceding that C++ doesn’t have features to help systems programming.
Arguments are being made for language platform features when the question of language features comes up. I doubt it has to do with people not understanding the question.
More likely just scratching heads to find atleast 1 useful C++ (or any other mentioned language) feature that actually is useful to the domains professed to be “supported”. This isn’t an attack, I am in this boat too! The utility of its language features seems to be no more than “atleast it is not assembly”.