>Almost every language has a book titled "Expert $LANGUAGE". If a language doesn't have one of those, it's probably either very new, or nobody actually uses it, or both.
I said books. I got that vibe in general from the people I met who claimed to be C wizards. Incredibly offputting.
>C and C++ are good for doing low-level stuff. If you don't want to do low-level stuff, then you should not worry about them. But in that case, you might also want to avoid commenting about them :)
I was going to delete my original comment because reading it over it felt like a bad idea. (I don't like jumping into ignorance induced shitstorms.)
>This is kind of an odd thing to criticize C++ for, since a lot of newer languages don't even have a standard, but just a reference implementation.
I should have put "features" in quotes. I was specifically using the definition in the old jargon file.  So what I really meant to say is that the compilers end up supporting each others bugs for compatibility reasons.
As for reference implementations, if the reference implementation is for all practical reasons the only implementation, then you don't need a standard.
: The comments I got in response are interesting enough that I'm actually glad I didn't.
: EDIT. My ignorance.
: See footnote on the last post, I should have made that more clear or used different terminology.