[pjmlp]

> So what? Those words probably had a good argument behind them, at the time.

> In the MS-DOS days, compilers weren't as good as today, so handwritten ASM paid off.

Just like C compilers had enough money spent into their optimizers, that eventually made them competitive against Assembly, so can C#,Go,D, <whatever language> have enough work placed into them, that eventually they will become competitive against C.

People believed they could make C competitive against Assembly, just like they believe they could make C++ competitive against C.

So it is a matter if one wants to believe and lead, or don't and follow.

[karmadog]

If <whatever language> makes certain assumptions and guarantees on behavior, then no, belief is not enough. It has to be plausible. GC alone really is a big issue and all the research (of which there is a lot) has not solved fundamental issues.

There are of course languages (like Rust) that have the fundamentals to match C/C++, but then it's still a matter of adoption. C++ also still develops.

[pjmlp]

The fundamental issues is that science only advances one memorial at a time, as there is no amount of technical proofs that will change the mind of luddites.