Modern critics of language lift some items. First, C ++ it is grounded on and it is substantially compatible to programming language C, it inherits the majority of the critical remarks aligned in that language. Taken as a whole, for C ++ there is a big feature set, including all C, plus the big set of its own additions, partially leading to critical remarks of to be the "blown up" and difficult language. Enclosed C ++ the standard has been defined to deal with a part of it, but it has received criticism for ignoring of useful parts of language which are not exposed to any penalty in execution time. Because of its big feature set, owners C ++ meet certain difficulties.



While C ++ is more added, than some other programming languages, Bjarne Stroustrup specifies, that "the program world is much more more added today, than it was 30 years ago, and the programming modern languages mirror it”. Under the standard of the International Organization on Standardization C ++ language makes approximately 310 pages (excepting library). For matching programming language C makes approximately 160 pages, even thus, that it has been developed more than 15 years ago and does not consider the programming oriented to the object.


Other criticism occurs that is absent in C ++. For example, the current version of Standard C ++ does not provide language features to create multipenetrating software, except volatile as keyword. (Following version C ++ will enter thread_local as keywords). These services are present in some other languages, including Java, the Hell, and C #. Probably to use inquiries of the operating system or third party library, to make multipenetrating programming, but both approaches can create mobility problems.


C ++ also sometimes it is compared unfavorable to a unique paradigm the languages oriented to the object, such as Java, on the basis, what is it allows programmers "to mix and correspond" oriented to the object and to procedural programming instead of strictly putting into practice a unique paradigm. It is a part of wider debate on relative advantages of two program styles.