Objective-C: I've coded in it, and currently maintain shipping apps in it. It's crap. It's been extended to Objective-C++ because of its shortcomings. It would not be used on iPhone at all if Apple didn't require its use. If Sun gets a JVM that the Apple fascists permit to run on their little hot-house orchid, or the C# implementation is at all decent, it's history on the iPhone, and the Apple people know it. Why do you think they don't permit any runtime but their own?
BeOS: blather and nonsense. Please don't post crap like this thinking I'm some code-slave in the next cubicle you can spin your nonsense to. There are lightweight Unix implementations written entirely in C++, there are large parts of the NT code base and supporting apps in C++, and there are large parts of Unix (like CDE) written in C++.
Java: Please actually read what the inventor of Java has written about it. It's a dumbed-down version of C++, nothing more. Although he -- like you -- believes this is a virtue.
Java, for instance, has surpassed C++ as an implementation language because it’s design was largely based on C++ shortcomings.
An editorial opinion of Java's popularity, that has no basis in reality. Java is popular because 70% of programmers fall within one standard deviation of average. There is nothing that can be done in Java that cannot be done better in C++. And there are an enormous number of things: real-time control, operating systems, compiler design, libraries where performance actually matters -- like much of the Java IO -- that cannot possibly be done in Java. Talk about only having a hammer. Java is designed to do one thing: allow a new generation of COBOL programmers to continue coding in mediocrity.
C++ conformance: Yawn. Every compiler has lists of implementation specific and non-conforming behavior. I asked you for something specific. You last coded C++ in VC2002. Tell me, what language feature of VC C++ in 2001 did you want to use that you couldn't? Partial template specialization? Please enlighten me about how the failure of partial template specialization hindered you in your career. Especially when no other language actually being used even had generics at that point.
Since you’ve chosen to ignore wide swaths of what I wrote, I’ll only address one response (the rest was largely redundant with what I’d already written regardless).
“BeOS: blather and nonsense. Please don’t post crap like this thinking I’m some code-slave in the next cubicle you can spin your nonsense to. There are lightweight Unix implementations written entirely in C++, there are large parts of the NT code base and supporting apps in C++, and there are large parts of Unix (like CDE) written in C++.”
So, you admit that since BeOS no OS has been written in object-oriented (as opposed to C subset) C++. Specifically as in accessing core OS functionality using C++ objects.
Game, set, match. C++ isn’t suitable for systems programming, nor really for any other large-scale undertaking.
Software development is rapidly moving beyond C++. I hope you’re happy advocating the “new COBOL”. LOL!