Article by Ayman Alheraki on January 28 2026 01:40 PM
In the world of programming, it is perfectly natural to like certain languages and dislike others. That is a personal right. However, there is a clear line between personal preference and intellectual fairness: you have the right to dislike a language — but you do not have the right to erase its history, deny its achievements, or reduce it to outdated mistakes written decades ago.
Some programming languages are not just tools; they are foundations. They power operating systems, game engines, compilers, financial systems, telecommunication infrastructure, medical devices, and countless core technologies we depend on every day.
When we talk about C++, we are talking about decades of accumulated engineering, billions of lines of production code, and entire industries built upon it.
You may dislike C++. That is fine. But presenting it as a “failed language” or a “historical accident” is simply dishonest. If it were truly obsolete or unfit, it would not still sit at the heart of so many mission-critical systems worldwide.
One of the most common criticisms of C++ is its insistence on backward compatibility.
This is often framed as a weakness. In reality, it is an engineering obligation.
When a language has billions of lines of existing code running in factories, airplanes, banks, satellites, and embedded systems, “breaking everything and starting fresh” is not bravery — it is recklessness.
Many modern languages had the luxury of starting clean because they did not inherit this burden. That is an advantage — but it does not make C++’s responsibility a failure. It makes it a language that understands the real cost of change in large-scale systems.
Perhaps the weakest form of criticism is judging C++ exclusively through:
C-style code written decades ago
Raw pointers everywhere with no discipline
Manual memory management in every function
No RAII, or deliberate ignorance of it
Unsafe string and array manipulation
Then declaring: “Look how unsafe C++ is.”
That is like criticizing modern cars by showing footage of a 30-year-old vehicle without airbags or ABS.
C++ after 2011 is not a minor patch — it represents a deep philosophical and practical shift. Modern C++ provides clear paths toward safer, more expressive, and more maintainable code — for those who choose to use them.
Fair comparison requires modern C++ vs modern languages, not legacy C++ vs today’s designs.
Another frequent attack is philosophical:
“Why doesn’t C++ prevent all dangerous behavior? Why does it give programmers so much freedom?”
Because that freedom is not accidental — it is intentional.
C++ acknowledges a reality many languages avoid: some domains cannot be solved efficiently under strict, enforced constraints without losing performance, control, or expressiveness.
C++ does not claim to replace the engineer’s judgment. It provides powerful tools and expects professionalism in return.
This is not chaos — it is responsibility.
Those who reject this responsibility call it “complexity.” Those who master it call it “capability.”
Yes, C++ is complex. But the real question is why.
Because it operates simultaneously at extremes:
Very close to the hardware
Capable of high-level abstractions
Backward-compatible with decades of software
Suitable for domains ranging from embedded systems to large-scale engines
This breadth does not come for free. If you want a language with fewer doors, many exist. If you want a language that spans the same range as C++, complexity is unavoidable — whether you pay for it in the language itself or in layers built around it.
The uncomfortable truth many critics avoid is simple:
Yes, C++ can be written dangerously.
Yes, C++ can also be written with exceptional discipline and safety.
The difference is not the language alone — it is engineering culture:
Clear ownership and lifetimes
RAII everywhere
Minimal exposure of unsafe primitives
Narrow, explicit interfaces
Strong review and design discipline
Modern tools used as intended
Writing reckless C++ and blaming the language is not criticism — it is deflection.
Since 2011, C++ has not been in survival mode — it has been in reinvention.
And it does so while carrying one of the largest legacy codebases in software history. That alone is an engineering achievement few languages could sustain.
As we look toward C++26 and beyond, the direction is clear: more support for disciplined programming, fewer foot-guns, better tools — without abandoning the real world that depends on it.
You are free to hate C++. But denying its history, misrepresenting its present, and labeling its strengths as flaws is not fair criticism — it is avoidance.
C++ is not just a language. It is a programming civilization: history, infrastructure, discipline, and responsibility combined.
And perhaps that is why it attracts so much hostility. Because strength that demands professionalism is uncomfortable — and the summit is always noisy.