[markbnj]

>> When I started learning C++ I was shocked. Instead of using objects for compartmentalizing functionality, they were just used as a holding pen for loosely related functions. Instead of communicating between themselves, objects were operated on by some bigger parent object. I found it absurd and fought it for a long time.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with C++. It's like blaming a microwave oven because your kid put a ball of tin foil in it.

C++ is a great language when you are developing big compiled programs and need strong metaphors for decoupling and modularity. Most developers today work on distributed systems where the individual cooperating pieces that they write are much smaller. Your 1000 line HTTP handler in python won't benefit much from strong static type checking, but the linux kernel does, and so do a lot of the infrastructure components we all take for granted every day.

[wtetzner]

The Linux kernel is written in C, not C++. C has static typing, but it is definitely not strong static typing.

[markbnj]

Yeah I did not mean to imply that the kernel was written in C++. As to whether C is "strongly typed" or not that is a matter on which we can disagree, as there is no agreed-upon definition of what that means. In my view it certainly falls on the strongly-typed side of the line when compared to the languages most developers use today. The point of my response is that OO methods as embodied in C++ were a response to the growing complexity of compiled programs back when it was developed, and those principles definitely helped developers, including myself, get a handle on that complexity.