What strikes me is the assumption that C++ is an object-oriented language. Yes, there is some support for the paradigm but it is neither great nor is it the main focus of the language. Developers have come up with reusable intrusive data-structure solutions, well knowing that they are bad for encapsulation and they are widely accepted. Most C++ developers wouldn't even shrug when you write a C-style list (in absence of a good library) precisely for the reasons stated in his article.
I was thinking the same after re-reading my post. I always thought it was a negative statement but it simply confirms what Stroustrup has always been saying about C++: "It's a multiparadigm programming language." Surely the support for one or the other paradigm could be better but this just reflects that things are shifting away a little from pure object-orientedness across languages.
Really? Because it started as "C with classes" IIRC. That you can used different paradigms, from procedural a la C to template-based programming etc, doesn't mean that it's not OO, or that it's not used for OOP 99% of the time.
Yes, that's how it started. But C with classes (or even C++ before standardization) is a really different language from what is there now.
As I said in another child of my post: It is a multiparadigm language. Of course a lot of people are using it for OOP. I don't dare to say what is the prevalent style of C++ nowadays. I don't know and I don't think anybody really does given the widespread use and different domains.
