I’m not sure why but programmers like to reject entire languages instead of just rejecting the features they don’t like. A lot of stuff in C++ is entirely avoidable.
Protocol-oriented programming is extremely useful for games and I like Objective-C for that reason. (Objective-C doesn’t meet his mentioned goal of portability but this is an example where C++ could be used to gain “light” inheritance without having to opt in to the rest of the mess that C++ can be.)
Compilation times even for simple C++ programs are far too long and it's not like you can reject this "feature" unless you basically write C code compiled with C++ compiler. For instance: simple hello world with iostreams takes 280ms to compile vs 40ms for C equivalent with stdio. And it only gets exponentially worse with bigger programs.
> I’m not sure why but programmers like to reject entire languages instead of just rejecting the features they don’t like.
The article mentions that:
>> What I want from a language
>> The strongest thing on my desired, but not required list is simplicity. I find looking up language features, and quirky 'clever' api's incredibly tiring. The ideal language would be one I can memorize, and then never have to look things up. (emphasis mine)
Protocol-oriented programming is extremely useful for games and I like Objective-C for that reason. (Objective-C doesn’t meet his mentioned goal of portability but this is an example where C++ could be used to gain “light” inheritance without having to opt in to the rest of the mess that C++ can be.)