That's an objectively correct statement, but I don't see how it makes sense as a response to my comment, as I'm advocating to use the more advanced feature-rich tool over the compiler-specific-hacks one.

> I don't see how it makes sense as a response to my comment

Your comment started out with "just."

As if there are never any compelling reasons to want to make existing C code better.

But instead of taking that as an opportunity to reflect on when various tools might be appropriate,

> as I'm advocating to use the more advanced feature-rich tool over the compiler-specific-hacks one.

You've simply doubled down.

If you're advocating switching languages, then there's no reason to stop at C++. It's more common to propose just converting the universe to Rust, but assembly also enjoys the possibility of being fairly easy to drop in on an existing C project.