> We're supposed to interpret other comments in the most charitable way, but a charitable interpetation is not at all possible when one says that C# is a usable solution for systems and embedded programming, that Nim is mature, or go is used in games and is a good idea to use for embedded.

Then don't misquote me. I didn't say any of that, except perhaps implying that Nim is mature. Ok right, and Go is great for embedded. I worked in embedded systems for years. 80% of the software ran on little arm boards that ran a decent OS (eg QNX, Linux, etc). Go would've saved so much trouble there. There's this weird HN filter bubble attitude that if it's more than 20MHz or does not ship with a 15 year old GCC fork, then it's not embedded, but that's bullshit. Go is a fantastic option for a very large amount of embedded software, and I'd wager what's left after that is perfectly served by tiny C programs running on little atmels.

I explicitly singled out C# for gamedev. Look, I'm trying to make a general argument that a few large still-good legacy libraries (such as Qt) are the only reason C++ is still standing. I must admit it feels a little like you're trying to misunderstand me on purpose because you don't like the message.