Elementary, my dear Watson.

Let's see, the number one most common reason to create a distro is "usability" and we've already got hundreds. Red Hat, Mandrake, Suse, Ubuntu to name a few. None of them became as usable as they claim.

Maybe there's something awfully wrong with that recipe, maybe usability comes as a result of other factors, such as choice, determinism, *nix philosophy or any number of other things, which these distros clearly don't focus on.

Stroustrup has just recently said that C is obsolete.
Not that I care, C++ is his baby. But, is it in your opinion humble, to call the most popular language in existence obsolete?

"I also get upset by people needlessly sticking to C because they don't understand C++ very well. Your point?"
Case in point.
You think that people don't understand C++ if they don't prefer it for every project.

That's the core of why people dislike C++, it's not necessarily the language, it's the whole culture around it, which reeks of self-entitlement and navelgazing.

C++ may have been created as an extension of C once upon a time, but clearly people disagree on the benefits of C++ on some types of projects.
I'd say that C++ tends to kill productivity on some larger projects because people get bogged down into arguments about language details instead of getting work done. And in this case kill is an understatement, because refactoring tends to make up half of commit history.
C++ isn't helped by this hodge-podge pile of junk like stl and boost that people see as some form of standard library. Things like Qt had to come in and save C++ from early death, so things are starting to look up.

Anyhow, for low level code, C is much preferred because it doesn't hide things and that the developer culture is much more mature, often more skilled and result-oriented.

C++ proponents aren't very humble, neither is the language itself.

I also get upset with people constantly trying to shove C++ on top of C projects, just because they don't know C very well.

Java was not widely used when it was chosen, it eliminates good programming practices and it doesn't have a decent *anything*. It's really just evidence that langue du jour rules the day when it comes to decisionmaking no matter how utterly shit the language is.

Yeah let's switch from one annoyingly shitty language to another.

Seriously, these are the worst languages ever invented, with absolutely zero redeeming properties.

You're of course correct.
But if you look at the development of phone radios.. you'll see that the handsets are getting so over the top ridiculously complex, with like 30 different frequency bands, MIMO and at least 5 topologically different radio technologies. They need those 4 core CPUs in "smart" phones just to handle radio comms.
Just try fitting all those antennas and other crap inside a watch.

I'd say 6 months is the minimum battery time for a device to be called a watch and not a wristband-PC.

It is feasible, (1-3yrs) just depends how smart your watch really is.
These full blown PC-operating systems running on "watches" with full colour displays are obviously never going to have more than a few days battery time.

Because it's not the right solution for every problem, and if you make languages that *force* this kind of behaviour, the shitty programmer will just put their bugs elsewhere.
The solution is to simply write better code.

That's not how it works, old solutions are still being used because they work incredibly well, and if not, they are improved.
The younger engineer may not know that and sometimes gravitate towards advertised solutions.

When talking about development, in most cases there's nothing new under the sun. Programming languages and tools haven't really improved for the last 40 years.
Most of the new stuff is simply hot air, has been tried before and failed, and the experienced developers know this. They also have the ability to more readily recognise when something truly is novel and an improvement.
Development is one of those areas where age is clearly a massive factor in the quality/productivity of a worker since younger engineers have had less time to learn their job.

In terms of features and overall syntax.
Details are unimportant when most new languages arguably are doing the same things as languages from 20-30 years ago.

I'm actually vehemently against using multiple languages, especially languages with large runtime requirements.
We already have too much fragmentation of incompatible code libraries getting written in 300 different scripting languages.
It's especially pointless when you realize there really is nothing new under the sun.

A language isn't just a tool. The situation is the equivalent of people writing down technical literature in Esperanto and everyone else picking their own language.

I think you like recursive solutions.

I'm sure everyone was thinking, we don't have enough languages that are basically a badly implemented subset of C++. We need to make another one.
Let's see if Android will respond by creating an even less compatible C++ clone than Java.

I'm of the same opinion, I like cars that are easy to muck around with, like jeeps etc. when something fails.
And what's one of the most common modes of failure in modern cars?
You guessed it, broken computer.

And no, I don't want to pay for redundant systems, I'd prefer a compromise where you might have steering separated to simplistic joystick control for when your "big" mcu inevitably fries.