gcc used to have an -Wunreachable-code option, but it depended too heavily on the exact optimisations enabled, so you could never tell what it would and wouldn't warn about, so that was dropped in 4.5. gcc 4.4 and earlier were capable of warning about this. clang does still have a warning for this, with a somewhat different approach so that it should be far more reliable, and the option name is the same as what gcc used to have. It is still not reliable enough to get enabled by default, though, unfortunately.
C++ is simply a significantly more complex language than Java. This sometimes has its advantages, but it also has disadvantages, and unreachable code detection is one of the major disadvantages: there are just too many examples where the compiler can tell that code is unreachable, and optimise accordingly, but the developer won't want a warning. For a simple example, a check that a function parameter value is negative may appear in a template function, but if the parameter type is dependent, and in the only particular instantiation in the program it happens to be unsigned, then the code will clearly be unreachable, but should most likely not be removed. This is much less of a problem for Java, since Java does not have templates. It does have generics, but generics work differently, and suffer much less from this problem.
I'm only going to look if you kick up a fuss about my ability to look
So instead of "Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't after you.", we now have "They're only after you because you're paranoid."?
If hotmail.com was sold and became a p0rn site
If I move and don't tell anyone, people who are looking for me will continue to ring the doorbell at my old address. If I want people to be able to find me, I should let them know I am going to move. But that's not the same thing. This isn't about what will be happening on the old address, but about what has already happened on the new address.
The White House plans to respond to each petition that crosses the signature threshold, which you can view on the Terms of Participation page. In a few rare cases (such as specific procurement, law enforcement, or adjudicatory matters), the White House response might not address the facts of a particular matter to avoid exercising improper influence. In addition, the White House will not respond to petitions that violate We the People’s Terms of Participation. In some cases, a single response may be used for similar petitions.
If they do not plan to respond to petitions, they should drop the claim that they plan to. This says nothing about a timeframe, though, so it is possible that they do plan to respond to the petitions, but not until we're in the year 2525.