The only thing "essential" about FQA is that someone absolutely has to drop a link to it whenever there's "C++" and "FAQ" in the same sentence. It's known for being known. The actual content is utter junk - just try reading through it once.

It's strident and biased (and makes no attempt to hide either) but IMO it's quite informative. I've learned a lot about C++ from it.

I thought I learned a lot about C++ from it when I first read it, but I have gradually come to realize that the things I learned were mostly a mix of incorrect and irrelevant.

It's a highly suspect source at best. The original FAQ (lite) is worlds better in spirit and in content.

I read through it once - some years ago - and agreed with its spirit. Unfortunately, until they've been enlightened, C++ acolytes are unlikely to understand it.

C++ is an ugly, flawed language. Despite this, it can also genuinely be the best choice for certain applications, and so there is a need for a FAQ such as this one.

But it's not "essential" that any such reference be accompanied by a recitation of the reasons the language sucks (some of them legitimate, even). The FAQ is for people using a tool to make things; the FQA seems primarily used to score points in discussions such as this one.* I think working programmers generally have more use for the former.

* There is also a need for constructive criticism of language design choices, of course, but the FQA predominantly rejects C++'s design premises (such as static compile-time polymorphism and lack of a memory-managed runtime) rather than recognize their utility and suggest better ways to accomplish them (as Mozilla is trying to do with Rust).

It's also worth reading this:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3171647/errors-in-c-fqa

No, that answer isn't particularly worth reading - unless you were doubting your C++ faith and wanted it shored up without much critical thought.

Having a different opinion than yours is not an error.

For those who don't know, the FQA, unlike the FAQ is well known to be extremely biased and exaggerated. It is not a neutral resource - it was expressly written as a takedown, with exaggeration used to great effect.