[gpderetta]

Backward compatibility with C semantics and tooling was fundamental for C++ success. We wouldn't be having this discussion otherwise as nobody would have used C++.

Tools are great for minor upgrades of APIs and syntax, but key to C++ was compiling with existing system headers (no, realistically you do not want to maintain your own 'fixed' version), and most importantly OS and library ABI.

[pjmlp]

AT&T had a Java like variant of C, before Java was even a thing, called C+@.

This DrDobbs article in an 1993 issue dedicated to possible successors to C, is the only proof that it ever existed.

http://www.drdobbs.com/article/print?articleId=184409085&sit...

Print view is the only way to read it properly.

[ndh2]

I agree. I said that it was a mistake, but in the beginning it really wasn't. It's just not a viable long term strategy in my view.