[qsort]

> C++ still exists because existing projects were written in it... that's it.

Obviously wrong, but sure, go on.

> Java is objectively dated in so many ways, it's not really defensible to say otherwise. Tons of unnecessarily verbose and boilerplate aspects of the language.

What Java are you talking about? It might have been true in the past, but modern versions of Java are just normal Algols. It's on par with C++, C# and Go, the other mainstream options you'd have for a project you'd write in Java. Sure, it's not as terse as Python, but neither is C++ or C# or Go.

[seer-zig]

Modern Java is much more terse than golang. No comparison really.

[vips7L]

Java the language is far more expressive than Go. Switch expressions, pattern matching, and streams are better than anything Go can offer right now.

[adam_arthur]

Ok, provide the counter evidence then.

Which aspects of C++ are superior to modern equivalents, ignoring ecosystem and network effects which aren't facets of the language.

[AnimalMuppet]

You made the claim. You should provide some evidence, not just demand that others do...

[adam_arthur]

Rust is more memory safe, more concise, and pretty much just as fast. There, now you go?

[AnimalMuppet]

>> C++ still exists because existing projects were written in it... that's it.

That was the claim. Between "Rust exists" and "the only reason C++ still exists is existing projects were written in it" there's still a fair amount of ground for you to cover.

You said that Rust is more memory safe. Hard to argue. And more concise, about which I have no information. Those are good things. But, as I brought up elsewhere in this thread:

Is Rust as easy to use in the embedded space? Is it available on as wide a variety of chips?

Does Rust make it as easy to control memory alignment, for those who need it?

Does Rust make it as easy to interface with libraries, many of which are written in C++?

Memory safety is good. Conciseness is good. Those are not the only reasons one might choose a language.