Re: Currently there is no serious alternative to C++

That is my conclusion.
With C++11 & 14, I can't see any new language that can replace it.

My considerations:

1. rust:
- Compiling of compiler does take very long time because it compiles
libraries as single source and therefore does not utilize multiple
cores
- doing simple things require unsafe blocks and ugly unsafe code
eg:
/// Pop a mutable reference off the head of a slice, mutating the slice
to no

/// longer contain the mutable reference. This is a safe operation
because the

/// two mutable borrows are entirely disjoint.

fn shift_mut_ref<'a, T>(r: &mut &'a mut [T]) -> Option<&'a mut T> {

    use std::mem;

    use std::raw::Repr;

    if r.len() == 0 { return None }

    unsafe {

        let mut raw = r.repr();

        let ret = raw.data as *mut T;

        raw.data = raw.data.offset(1);

        raw.len -= 1;

        *r = mem::transmute(raw);

        Some({ &mut *ret })

    }

}

http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/program.php?test=nbody&lang=rust&id=1
I don;t think this requires comments...

2. go
- does not have templates, therefore there are tools to generate code
  from templates which is so 90es...

- optimizer is in infant stage.
- calls through interfaces are slow
- calls to external libs are very costly (this is remedied in gccgo,
  but than code isn't portable to standard go compiler)
- only good for server side programming that does not have heavy numeric
processing, because of slow code.
- java bits it hands down
+ could replace python, but no more
+ extremely fast compilation

3. nim
- one man project
- small user base
- python/pascal syntax with indentation instead of {}
- buggy
+ compiles to c/c++ and obj c even java script

+ templates and very innovative macros.
+ multi methods
+ supports both GC and manual memory management
- not nearly as good as C++ , yet, but promising