>>1. Dude ... if you want to query the size of an array, use a vector. No, it doesn't make your code less readable. And, no, you don't have to use .at() everywhere: C++ has this thing called operator overloading. Maybe you've heard of it. You can use array syntax with vectors. Use vectors.
Dude, don't use square brackets with STL arrays and vectors, just to make your code more readable. The  operator skips bounds checking, which is the main reason for using these classes in the first place. At() is the proper methodology to use in pretty much every case, unless you are so confident in your bounds that its worth the trivial speed increase in access time.
>>2. I'd like to know what functionality you think you need string.h for when using C++ strings. I've found the standard library string type quite feature-complete.
The biggest gaps were filled in C++11 with replacements for atoi() and so forth, but there's still no replacement for strtok or some of the other functions in the core language.
>>3. C++ isn't an interpreted language; of course it won't have much reflection.
Sure. Makes life more difficult though by pushing those tests out to the linker instead of being able to code them directly from the language itself.
>>4. Forward declarations are not for saving the compiler time. They are for declaring a linkage interface with external code. If you ever even thought seriously about writing a C++ compiler you would know the language is not designed to make doing so easy.
Not my point. Quite obviously you need declarations for extern names not found in the file scope. But for functions within the same file scope, you still need to do forward declarations, which is only done to avoid having to do an extra pass over the code. Might have made sense in the 80s, but not today. Maybe it's not a huge deal since it's just a single copy and paste and edit every time you change a function definition when you're working on it, but it still otherwise serves no benefit.
Also, there shouldn't be much need for #ifdef guards any more. It's 2015. We should be able to include the same function definition twice without the universe breaking.