> Because it was a tongue-in-cheek response to a statement that was,
> frankly, pretentious.
No, not pretentious. Factual.
> And yet, we still live in an age where major C++ projects refuse to use
> the C++ standard library. That's an embarrassment.
An embarrassment for those projects, yes. I'm not claiming C++ is perfect. It's far from it. I'm claiming it's more useful than C, which is true. There are parts of the C standard library people don't touch.
> For the C++ professionals out there who like the language (like me!),
> how many C++ books are on your shelf?
This isn't a valid way to measure the productivity aspects of a language, but to answer your question, I have one that I have referenced over the last two years: Josuttis' Standard Library book.
> when it's quite straightforward to employ void * safely.
Sure, one can employ void * safely. Just not as easily as one can in C++. One can't get the performance out of void * that one can get out of templates.
> And yet, can tell me why new and delete haven't been deprecated from
> the C++ language as the ghastly abominations that they are?
That's a bit strong, wouldn't you say? What's wrong with them, exactly?
> You *need* to use boost::array
No, actually I've never used it.
> once you start using boost, you no longer are writing "C-style" C++
You're mixing design styles. No one who uses Boost extensively *wants* to write "C-style." But I certainly would consider boost::array to be "C-style."
> The complications of function overloading alone are enough to
> accidentally trip up the minimalist C-style programmer, if they are not
What's difficult about function overloading? The member hiding rules are surprising for the newcomer but so are pointers and recursion.
> Language war threads are probably better waged on other sites.
I don't consider this a war. I consider it education.