>>724742112
>what's so bad about C++?
bloat and "features" that in practical terms exist only as foot guns. bad features bandaiding other bad features, rule by committee adding features for the sake of wanting more features. RAII and OOPslop

>templates and generics
nothing in principle, in the context of C++ tho? exponentially longer compile times, fucked up error messages, horrible syntax

>pointers and memory allocation?
nothing

>metaprogramming?
nothing