If you think C++ could be changed so much then they would never come up with C#

They would because C# is pretty much entirely something else, it is a portable cross-platform language that requires a runtime to compile its intermediate form

VB 1990 and VB today is a totally different thing, but it's still called "VB"... not with C++ the name wasn't kept, C++ still exists... thus it didn't change that much.

VB 1990 and VB today is a totally different thing, but it's still called "VB"... not with C++ the name wasn't kept, C++ still exists... thus it didn't change that much.

The name was not kept with C++ either, the original name was C With Classes, the name C++ appeared when templates were added

I posted the link to it's history... what you said never happened.

Just like saying "ww2 is Germans killing a bunch of people"

With incremental changes to it

This new language was developed by Bjarne Stroustrup and was called C++.

In 1985, Stroustrup's reference to the language entitled The C++ Programming Language was published. That same year, C++ was implemented as a commercial product.

Also, C++ is not the name of a language

But claiming it wasn't called "C++" is wrong... it was always called C++

It was called C with classes from 1979 through 1983

Published "i.e. released to public".

In 1983, the name of the language was changed from C with Classes to C++.

Published "i.e. released to public".

If it was publised in 1985, I don't care what they did internally...

It was already used internally at AT&T before

Overall it's not a functional language, the idea was to make an OOP langauge out of C and there are specialized functional language as old as fortan.

Now it is also functional, sorry but deal with it

Prove it.

partial function applications (requires implicit closures in general)?

Tail calls (some compilers can optimise some limited cases of tail self-recursion, but there is no guarantee, and the language is actively hostile to the general case (pointers to the stack, destructors, and all that))?

And when was that added?

Pattern matching... does not exist in C++

Garbage collection (you can use Boehm's conservative collector, but it's no real substitute and rather unlikely to coexist peacefully with third-party code)?

Garbage collection never was a feature of a functional programming language

All functional langauges have Garbage collector.

Lisp, Haskel, Erlang.

Nothing forbids a standard c++ library to be garbage collected

Nothing forbids a standard c++ library to be garbage collected

There is not a single implimentation of C++ that has garbage collector...

Also, Lisp is also OOP

The Common Lisp Object System (CLOS) is the facility for object-oriented programming which is part of ANSI Common Lisp. CLOS is a powerful dynamic object system which differs radically from the OOP facilities found in more static languages such as C++ or Java.

😶 can anyone show me how we can find a digit in a Number in CPP Like to check if 3 is present or not in 46748327 this number

You will have to at least partially stringify the number

😶 can anyone show me how we can find a digit in a Number in CPP Like to check if 3 is present or not in 46748327 this number

So I'll have to take input as int then show parse it as string and compare the number i wanna find to each character of that string?? No any way for directly compare by int?

But as a general case, I like to avoid any form of inheritance and class play when I code in C++ because it is pretty much heresy

C++ is OOP... it's not designed to be functional or procedural.

You can return as soon as you find 3 while stringifying

wrong

+10, I never code OO in C++ if I can avoid it

Wrong